Most FANGAs have rapidly seized power in the media world, mainly through their breakthrough technology and focus on consumer desires.
Broadcast Magazine has been around for 30 years. In the still young media industry, the magazine is a survivor, because several revolutions have taken place during this period. Time for a look back.
Commercial TV changed fundamentally in the years that this magazine was founded. In the United States, the triopoly of CBS, NBC and ABC was broken. These companies had built up unprecedented market power in the 1970s and 1980s and ruled the media. This kingdom suddenly collapsed phenomenally, not least because of the arrogance of the networks themselves. The book Three blind mice described this development clearly and should still be mandatory for today's broadcasters. At the same time, commercial TV broke through in Europe, with American managers such as Harry Sloan (the founder of SBS) playing an important role in addition to new European media companies. The first revolution, set in the 1990s when the world economy developed phenomenally, was dominated by commercial TV.
The first decade of this century marked the breakthrough of large-scale TV production. Endemol reached its current (!) Size, Fremantle emerged from the womb of Pearson and CLT-UFA and a number of ITV executives founded All3 Media. It was the second great revolution, the emergence of the Superindies. Every self-respecting media company has now set up its own studio and we live in a world where television production has taken off unprecedented.
The first major transition took place in adjacent markets in these years. Publishers saw their position weaken and the music industry underwent a fundamental change. This first form of disruption had enormous consequences for these sectors, but television continued to develop relatively slowly. Until large numbers of governments started to wonder (after the great financial crisis at the end of the first decade) why people invested so much in public broadcasting. Budgets were cut almost everywhere in Europe and with the exception of a single southern European country (such as Greece, where the existing public broadcaster ERT was even discontinued, there is now a successor), the Netherlands was even a leader in cutbacks. It was the third revolution, the fundamentally different, suspicious view of public broadcasting in Europe.
However, all these revolutions are dwarfed by the massive disruption that is taking place at the moment, the digital media revolution. It all started (as it often does) in the US and reached Europe via Scandinavia. The emergence of new digital players, both in the field of social media and online video, has had an unimaginable impact. Most FANGAs have rapidly seized power in the media world, mainly through their breakthrough technology and focus on consumer desires. Traditional media outlets are trying to fend off these new developments and perhaps, contrary to what happened in the music industry, are doing the right thing. They are adopting a new digital strategy and increasing their scale through massive transactions. Examples abound in the last 2 years: the takeover of Time Warner by AT&T, of Sky by Comcast, of Scripps by Discovery and the merger between CBS and Viacom this summer. These companies are now also targeting consumers directly, with Disney impressing most with a range of SVOD initiatives, from Disney + to Hulu and ESPN.
Four major revolutions in 30 years, no wonder it is so interesting to work in the media. I am curious about the outcome of the latest revolution (which according to colleague Mark Ramakers will result in world domination of only a few companies) and I am eagerly looking forward to the fifth… ..
In the 1960s, the United States fell behind in the space race with the Soviet Union. Yuri Gagarin was the first human to break through the Earth's atmosphere, a monumental achievement. Unable to accept this, the United States - through President John F. Kennedy - established the goal of landing the first person on the moon within a timespan of 10 years. The rest is history and the wording of such a distant, grand objective became known as the 'moonshot goal.'
Stating such a goal is even more important when things are a bit difficult. That was the case with Kennedy's example and is the case for many public broadcasters in Europe. The sentiment in politics is generally unfavorable, budget cuts are commonplace, and digital competition is capturing viewership share. Young people are increasingly unable to find public broadcasters, and consequently a significant strategic crisis has emerged. This is the situation in Scandinavia, Germany, the United Kingdom, and in our own country. Let alone the situation in Poland and Spain.
So, there is a crisis in public broadcasting in Europe, precisely at a time when polarization is increasing, and misinformation is rampant. Especially during such times, it is crucial to prioritize neutral reporting and foster a sense of community. Excellent leadership is invaluable in such circumstances. And it's not the first time that the BBC has set an example during such times. Tim Davie, the excellent Director-General of the BBC, spoke at a Royal Television Society event last month. His argument centered around the fact that the future of the United Kingdom is at risk in democratic, social and cultural terms. He saw three roles for the BBC in countering this threat. Pursuing truth with no agenda by reporting fearlessly and fairly. Backing the best British storytelling by investing in homegrown talent and creativity. Lastly, bringing people together by connecting everyone to unmissable content.
That's what you call a moonshot goal! Because what follows from this? The BBC must serve its 'customers' from every platform, at all times. BBC Three will be closed as young people will find BBC content online, via iPlayer. New services are being developed, such as BBC Verify: the future major fact-checker. Interventions will be made in the BBC organization to make all this possible. And finally, the BBC will also explore whether a new, better funding system than the archaic licensing fee can be developed.
Isn't it wonderful? In the United Kingdom, significant changes are being developed from a strategic perspective. In the Netherlands, we only see politically motivated cost-cutting measures within the public broadcaster, neglecting the pursuit of deliberate strategic advancement in the media sector. I rest my case...
Na een loopbaan bij de commerciële (SBS) en publieke (KRO-NCRV) omroep belandde Rijssemus bij producent IDTV, onderdeel van het Britse All3Media dat hem uiteindelijk richting Berlijn dirigeerde om ook de Duitse markt te veroveren. "Dat had ik niet verwacht, moet ik zeggen", aldus Rijssemus lachend. "Ik dacht: ze vragen me voor Amerika, of een bedrijf ergens in de UK misschien."
Wat trof Rijssemus aan en is Duitsland nog steeds 'de heilige graal'? "Je moet de balans vinden: hoeveel energie geeft en kost een baan je?"
Hoe kwam deze student fiscaal recht en economie uiteindelijk in de mediawereld terecht en waarom wilde hij namens RTL zo graag Videoland overnemen? “We hebben daar veel van geleerd en ook heel veel fouten gemaakt, met name een deel infrastructuur totaal nieuw moeten bouwen”, blikt Habets terug. “Toen we 40.000 abonnees hadden, bleek het platform niet meer aan te kunnen…”
Inmiddels opereert hij vanuit München op de Duitse markt en past ook daar zijn ervaring toe met “het omkatten van een televisie- naar een streaming first-bedrijf.” Habets romantiseert zijn internationale carrière niet: “Je moet eerlijk zijn naar jezelf en het doen om de juiste redenen, anders wordt het gewoon een baan.”