Oege Boonstra

Around the turn of the millennium, there was a frenzy of investment in companies that were known as "new media". Some of these companies are the tech giants we know today: Amazon, Facebook, Google... resounding successes that created enormous shareholder value. But there were also many companies that didn’t make it and went bankrupt. What was remarkable at that time was that large risks were being rewarded with additional investments. It was during this period that the concept of burn rate emerged: the amount of money a company loses per unit of time (a day, a month, or a year). You might think it couldn't get any crazier, but that is how it was at the time.

The recent streaming boom in the media world seemed to be following a similar pattern. Driven by the new Holy Grail, subscriber growth, streamers have been investing aggressively in content. Billions of dollars were available for creators, seemingly without a limit. Due to the success of Netflix, traditional media companies began to believe that investing in direct-to-consumer activities was a wise investment. With the exception of a few good examples (early entrants like RTL Netherlands with Videoland), this has slowly turned into a disaster. After all, companies everywhere are bleeding money, especially those who arrived late to the game.

Since traditional media companies do not like burn rates, there will be heavy cost-cutting this year. Warner Discovery was the first to announce a cost-cutting package of $3.5 billion (!), and Disney now is following suit and is even going further. CEO Bob Iger, who has returned to the company, has announced a whopping $5.5 billion in budget cuts, with 7,000 jobs being eliminated. These are tough measures, that are being appreciated by the shareholders of these companies.

However, there is a world where losses are still an accepted phenomenon. The sports world has its own rules, especially with regards to soccer. In the American system, club owners of the major American sports (baseball, basketball) are somewhat restrained by fair play rules. Apparently in soccer, other laws apply, where club losses are compensated for by owners who legally and often illegally supplement the club's coffers. Soccer club owners seem to have no problem with the burn rate of their plaything.

At the top of the list is sports streamer DAZN. Launched about 6 years ago by Russian billionaire Len Blavatnik as “the Netflix of Sports”, the company recently published results that broke all records. On a revenue of $1.6 billion, it suffered a loss of $2.9 billion in 2021. Given that sports rights are only an expensive loan, as they always belong to someone else, one can imagine that DAZN is built on quicksand. The planned IPO was canceled, but CEO Segev insists that he is sitting on a goldmine. "The Netflix story, the Amazon story — I think DAZN is going there as well." However, an adventure built on the quicksand of a magnificent burn rate will most likely not succeed.

Predicting the future of media is just like predicting the weather: the truth all too often overtakes the forecast. Last year, I made some tentative attempts to predict the future in a number of columns and - to my relief - those were more often right than wrong. That's why I've gained just enough confidence to look into the future again...

The first one is rather safe: AVOD is going to make a massive breakthrough this year. All major SVOD players are heading in that direction and eventually it will become roughly one-third of their revenue. Remarkably enough, VOD is starting to look more and more like commercial television in this way. Allowing advertisements on the platform used to be a taboo for Netflix a few years ago, but the market leader cannot avoid it, in a time when consumer purchasing power is so heavily affected. Co-market leader Disney is also going to embrace AVOD.

The next prediction is a more bold one. Currently, on-demand accounts for around 30% of the consumer viewing behaviour. I previously argued that the tipping point has already taken place and that the shift to on-demand viewing is going to accelerate significantly. I think major players like Amazon, Apple and Google will invest massively in sports rights, while DAZN will also stay very active. Sports are one of the mainstays for public -, commercial - and pay television: the above-mentioned trend will hit traditional television hard. At the end of 2023, more than half of the viewing time will be spent online, I think.

A few years ago, broadcasters took the initiative to cooperate more closely in order to withstand - in particular - the American Tech threat. I think this development will stop in 2023. Broadcasters have understood that they will have to protect their brand and that this is incompatible with common VOD activities. ITV has already launched ITVX in the UK and similar situations will emerge at local media companies in other countries. Salto and Britbox will gradually be suffocated in their own national market in the coming year.

The increase in scale of media companies will also be brought to a halt. There will be no more major mergers. Only in the production market there will still occasionally be a takeover, but mega deals like the Discovery - Warner merger are a thing of the past. 2023 will be the year of operational excellence. The merger plans of RTL and Talpa will falter because ACM is an obstacle. Thomas Raabe, the CEO of RTL and Bertelsmann, can forget about his dream deal in Germany, a merger between RTL and P7S1.

And finally: the growth will cease in the production market. The marketing efforts of VOD players dry up: the focus will shift from subscriber growth to profitability. The production market will decline by around 10% and will stabilize at that level. In and of itself, this already is fantastic news for producers, because this is still well above the market size of 5 years ago. There still glows a little hope because TikTok is going to invest in long-form content and YouTube will have to participate. Well, we'll see....

Big Tech has turned the media industry upside down. Netflix and Amazon have brought about an unprecedented change in consumer viewing habits in long form content, after Google did the same with its YouTube on short form video. The share of streaming in consumer viewing time has grown at an alarming rate, and it may not be long before the tipping point is reached: consumers will inevitably watch more video online than on television.

Most media companies have long since woken up and embraced online video. Videoland, NPOStart, Streamz, Britbox, Disney +, HBO Max, Peacock, Joyn, Discovery+: so many initiatives have seen daylight. Disney's success is resounding and it looks like it could overtake market leader Netflix in the long run. Let's face it: the combination of the Fox and Disney catalog, the addition of Starz and so on, offer a wide catalog for the whole family. Disney even went so far as to put a large number of linear channels in the garbage bin.

Of the Big Tech companies, Amazon is the most adept at online video activities. It cleverly selects the territories where it wants to be present, packs the video offering into its Prime subscription service and also makes a number of very relevant acquisitions.  It gives Amazon the market leadership in Germany and strengthens its presence in the Netherlands. The acquisition of MGM was a surprising step and consumers will see the effects of it this summer: the entire James Bond catalog is being marketed smartly and will undoubtedly generate a series of new Prime subscribers.

In all that violence, one global player remains remarkably silent: Apple’s content businessis negligible. Apple TV+ does not appeal at all to the spoiled video consumer. The Morning Show, announced with much fanfare, is hardly watched outside the US and the adjacent video offering is also of poor quality.  Are they asleep in Cupertino?  I cannot imagine that, because Apple is an excellently run company. Apparently, however, management lacks knowledge in the field of content and therefore there seems to be only one logical stepforward. The analogy arises with Google, which tried to compete in online video with Google Video 15 years ago, but remained in a disappointing second position. The solution? The acquisition of market leader (and at the moment fiercely loss making) YouTube.

I had actually expected years ago that Apple had acquired Netflix, but after the unprecedented rally of the Netflix share (the price reached a peak of more than 700 dollars last year), that thought seemed unfeasible. But Netflix has landed back on earth and the stock is hovering around $170: surely the policymakers in Cupertino could think of this enticing thought again? The financing of this does not seem to be a problem for Apple. Or will they find the risk of investing in content too great and continue to navigate the current, extraordinarily successful business model (selling hardware with insanely easy software and wonderful user interface)?

‍