Tag: Fortnite

How Fortnite vs Apple Could Impact The Streaming Wars: Imagining a “Maximalist” Scenario

The first thing to know about the streaming wars is that it is really multiple wars simultaneously. One war is between the streamers. They compete fiercely against each other, with Netflix in the lead. (This is by far the most covered battleground.) 

If those are the established powers, the upstarts are the free, ad-supported streamers are trying to take territory, er attention/mindspace/viewership, from both. Youtube leads here, but is followed by the hot new crowd of Pluto, Xumi, Tubo, Roku/IMDb Channels, and more.

Yet, those land armies’ power is dwarfed by that of the air forces of the world. Who in many cases set the terms of the streaming wars. And in this analogy, that’s the platforms that deliver the streamers, be they devices or operating systems or other bundlers have just as much, if not more, power. In a moment, a platform could blow up an entire business model, like dropping a nuclear bomb on an opponent’s army.

(The Game of Thrones analogy patented by Dylan Byers also explains this well: streamers are the traditional houses of Westeros, ad-supported streamers are Daenerys and the Dothraki, and the platforms are the White Walkers.)

If you want to understand the scope of Epic Games going to war with Apple, this is it. Epic Game’s army is fighting Apple’s air force, with the expected outcome that Apple nukes Epic’s business.

For those who don’t know, Epic Games (maker of the Fortnite game and Unreal video game engine) tried to implement in-app purchasing outside of Apple’s payments system. This resulted in them being kicked off the Apple app store, lawsuits and countersuits.

The Fortnite gambit will directly impact the streaming wars. The ability of platforms to dictate terms to the streamers directly hits streamers’ top, bottom and cash flow lines. If Fortnite wins, it is like taking away Apple’s (and Google, Roku and Amazon’s) ability to drop bombs. (Okay, I’ve taken this analogy about as far as it will go.) That’s what I’m going to explore today:

  •  First, explaining the relationship between aggregators, streamers, bundlers and platforms.
  •  Second, describing the “maximalist” scenario where platforms are heavily regulated.
  • Third, understanding the impact across the three forms of streaming business models: 

–  Transactions (Pay per usage)
– Subscriptions (Pay a recurring fee for access)
– Advertising (Free, but watch/listen to advertisements)

Putting this In Context

As I wrote last November, the key to understanding the streaming wars is to know that a huge amount of power is vested in what I call “Digital Video Bundlers”, the folks bundling multiple streamers into one experience. Here’s where they are on the map, yellow:

Image 1 Video Value Web copy

Fortnite would slot in where I put “aggregators”, though that term is more apt for streamers than gamers like Fortnite. Apple is the bundler, since they allow a user the opportunity to play multiple games on one device. Crucially, Fortnite—like many app makers—wants to be more. They want to sell additional things within its game to make more money. Epic Games also wants to set up an entire app store on its own. (Really, Epic Games has dreams of being a bundler as well.)

The conflict stems from those in-app purchases. Since Apple owns the operating system, it wants a piece of any money being exchanged on its platform. When you buy an application, you pay Apple 30% of that price. On some level this makes sense. Apple set up the platform so they should get paid for letting you on the platform.

This is a “platform tax” that Apple charges to have an application on its App Store. And Amazon and Google have similar taxes. (You could call it a “fee”, “rent”, or other term, but I like tax.) A tax for doing business on their platform. Apple says this is the price needed to run its App Store.

That’s what makes the terms of this court case so large. If Fortnite wins, they won’t just change their own terms, but alter the fundamental case law around platforms. The results could impact Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Google, Amazon, Roku and any other platform.

The Maximalist Scenario

That’s the world I want to imagine today. I’m calling this the “maximalist” scenario. It assumes a judge/judges/legislative bodies/regulatory agencies use the Fortnite case to legislate/regulate/litigate maximum concessions from an Apple, Amazon or Google on their platforms. Call this the “worst case” for platforms or the “best case” for streamers, applications and games. Say…

– A 3% cap on fees (or cap on fees up to a given maximum).
– Guaranteed carriage on non-business issues
– No tying disparate business unit negotiations together.

Essentially, in this scenario digital market places like app stores are governed as utilities. The government would be saying, “Since you have de facto monopoly power over app stores, we have to regulate your business to ensure you don’t abuse your power.” I’m not assuming this happens, but exploring the “what if” scenario where it does. 

Impact on Transactional Business Models

The impacts on the transactional video-on-demand (TVOD) market would probably be the starkest of any of the business models.

Fundamentally, the platform tax makes any external TVOD business unworkable on any mobile device. The math is fairly simple. If you’re Apple, and you own your own TVOD business in iTunes, your gross margins look like this:

Image 2 - Apple TVOD

Now compare that to an independent service trying to run a TVOD business on iTunes:

Read More

Most Important Story of the Week – 14 Aug 20: What Comes Next As The Paramount Consent Decrees End?

The theme of the week is “antitrust”. It didn’t start out that way, as Friday night’s leadership change at AT&T would have been the story of the week most weeks. (Though, I consider it less of a big deal than most, and that’s why it’s at the bottom of this column.) So which M&A story wins the crown?

Most Important Story of the Week – Ending the Paramount Dissent Decrees

Ending the decades old Paramount Consent Decrees isn’t simple to explain. Because it was also the core trend in regulation over the last 30 years, it took me about 1,700 words. Which I’ll put up early next week. (Just too much news this week.)

In this column, I’ll just focus on the question on everyone’s mind is what comes next. To guess at that requires answering the key trend in government regulation: will antitrust enforcement become more lax or strict over the next few years? Let’s try both scenarios.

Continued Lax Antitrust Enforcement

Starting with the likelier outcome: nothing changes. If there are any economic headwinds in January–and there probably will be!–industry leaders will tell President Biden that breaking up companies will hurt growth. (It won’t; it will hurt industry profit and those are two different things.) That will scare him from enforcing current law and thus, things stay the same.

That leaves these key facts: 

– There are three big studios with lots of cash/success (Disney, Warner Bros, Universal)
– Three smaller studios with less cash (Sony, Paramount, Lionsgate)
– Lots of smaller distributors (A24, STX, Annapurna, etc)
– And the new digital titans with mountains of cash that make Smaug the dragon jealous (Netflix, Amazon, Apple, etc). 

– There are only really three major theater chains: Regal, Cinemark and AMC Theaters.

If the big players with lots of money can buy a studio chain–and honestly the prices are so low in the Covid-19 economy, for some it’s a drop in their debt bucket–I think they will. Sure, theaters are a dying industry (kidding), but being able to collect all the theatrical rentals and own the entire relationship will be too big of an opportunity for at least one of these entertainment/tech giants to pass up. 

Even if it isn’t a great business opportunity, when Comcast announces it is buying AMC Theaters, hypothetically, that will leave Warner Bros and Disney staring at only two remaining chains in the US. If Amazon or Apple sounds interested, then suddenly the land grab is on. If the remaining theaters get purchased by other studios, the remaining studios will be terrified their movies won’t get played. That’s their worry. Sure, Disney will probably be fine with its blockbusters, but would Paramount make that bet? Or Lionsgate?

Thus, tentatively, I think we see the theater chains get snapped up. When? That’s tougher to say, given that everyone’s cash flows are a mess right now. But once the race starts, it will end with all the theater chains under new ownership. I know I’m the outlier on this –the smart take is, “No Disney won’t buy a theater!”–but the logic feels inescapable: if there are three chains, and 10 potential buyers, they’re gonna get bought up.

In the meantime, you’ll see lots of block booking, licensing of films to theater chains and other practices previously held in check by the decrees. They were held in check because the big studios know they can extract rents from theaters with them. Since these practices benefit the bigger studios with blockbuster films, the independent distributors will definitely be hurt. Of course, the judge deciding the case said she didn’t see this happening, but judges tend to be shockingly bad predictors of future corporate behavior. 

(Judge Richard Leon who approved the AT&T deal and, I believe, the Sprint/T-Mobile mergers takes the cake in this. He consistently believes that companies won’t raise prices after a merger, and then they always do! Funny how that happens.)

Renewed Strict Enforcement

On the unlikely side of the coin, potentially a President Biden and Attorney General Warren come out swinging at consolidation. In that scenario, everyone will be scared to start an M&A process. Potentially, the theaters could be candidates to get broken up! (Arguably, this would be great for the industry. With dozens of smaller theater chains, they would be more innovative and focused on their strategy.)

Moreover, an AG Warren would look at harmful vertical integration practices across the spectrum of entertainment. Everything from how licensing deals harm talent to price collusion by the entertainment conglomerates to platforms extracting rents as monopolists to, and this is is crazy, how price gouging by big tech to seize market share. 

That said, I’m skeptical strict enforcement is coming. Guess what? Wall Street agrees. Which I’ll explain next week.

M&A and Antitrust Updates

Wow, what started as a quiet week in M&A news got fairly busy. 

Sumner Redstone Passing Away Means More M&A around ViacomCBS

First, Sumner Redstone passing away is the end of an era, an era with old-fashioned media tycoons. He assembled his media empire by buying, buying, buying in an age that was just beginning to allow media consolidation. That’s sharp insight into the landscape. Of course, he also was described generously as a “brawler” and negatively as “thuggish”, so it’s not all a positive story for old-fashioned tycoons. He was also notoriously litigious, which again is less business acumen and more brute force.

What comes next for ViacomCBS? The scuttlebutt is something, but what we don’t know what. Both ViacomCBS finally being sold (Current market cap is around $16 billion.) is an option and so is ViacomCBS buying more (MGM? Discovery?) to then be sold to a bigger buyer. Or it holds the course as it tries to boost its stock price. 

Epic Games Sues Apple for Anti-Competitive Practices

In a week that doesn’t see the end of the Paramount Consent Decrees, this is the clear number one story of the week. So important that I’ll save it for next week in case we have a slow news week. The story is that Epic Games–maker of Fortnite–is upset at having to pay Apple’s 30% pass-through tax/fee/rent on in-app purchases. So they just stopped, Apple kicked them off the app store, and now they’ve gone to court. Google then followed suit. (That last part is good news, since it means this story is far from over.)

This will have ramifications for video games, technology and entertainment. Consider Disney+: Right now, they’d have to pay Apple $9 for every $30 rental of Mulan (unless they negotiated another split). If in-app purchases go away, Disney gets to keep that for themselves.

I won’t even bother to forecast how this ends, but we’ll be paying attention.

AT&T Wants $1.5 billion for CrunchyRoll

This is a bananas story–that’s a technical term–in The Information, the outlet that seems to get all the scoops. AT&T thinks CrunchyRoll is worth 10% of all of ViacomCBS? My how things have changed.

If I were Sony, I’d point out just how low the barriers to entry are to buy anime content. Every streamer has their M&A vertical from Netflix to Amazon to Hulu. It’s just not a point of differentiation, and definitely not a $1.5 billion point of differentiation.

Data of the Week – BBC Global Audience

I’m a sucker for global data numbers, so the number of the week is BBC reaching 486.2 million folks around the globe, an increase over last year’s record of 438 million. Of course, like any number defining reach is always tricky. This seems to include folks who simply visited any BBC website over the last year, which is valuable, but not quite the same as regularly watching BBC News.

Still, the 400 million reach number is a good stand in as well for global English language total attributable market. Meaning, if you were Netflix, you could point to that as the upside scenario.

Other Contenders for Most Important Story

No College Football

This is bad news for ESPN, Fox, Fox Sports, ABC, NBC and CBS. Less live sports means less lucrative revenue for the traditional businesses. That’s a pretty simple case. And in other weeks could have been the story of the week. (Though its impact is lessened by the chance the season moves to the spring and that other sports are going full bore.) Rick Porter has the good read this week. Anthony Crupi too.

NCAA Alston Case: Supreme Court Helps College Athletes

The Supreme Court refused to allow an injunction in the Alston Case, the ruling that says NCAA players can get paid to play. While this isn’t the final word, it makes it much more likely to actually go into effect. If, of course, there are sports to be played.

Sky World News shuttering

Comcast bought Sky from Fox during the Disney merger time, and one of their big initiatives was to launch a global news service. Well, those plans are on hold. 

Lots of News with No News – AT&T Friday Night Change in Leadership

Oh yeah, this happened.

Notably, this isn’t a “massacre”. Let’s save such extreme language for bigger changes. Instead, Jason Kilar is consolidating control at AT&T’s Warner-Media, with the narrative that this will allow him to focus on streaming, streaming, streaming. Let’s go best case/worst case.

Best Case: The strategy is more focused.

A good strategy is a focused one. Arguably, Kilar is eliminating his direct reports who don’t share that focus. So if you were wondering if AT&T would “burn the boats” for HBO-Max, Kilar has forced them to. A simpler org chart should help drive HBO Max growth.

Worst Case: He’s eviscerated his content side.

Not completely, he had five creative types before, he’s down to three now. Did he pick the right ones? We don’t know. (I don’t have enough data to prove it.) But none of them are guaranteed hit-pickers like a Les Moonves at his peak. The further worry is that Kilar is NOT a content guy and “content is king”. When he was at Hulu, Kilar was was more focused on the algorithm than the content, right as Netflix went all in on the content. Vessel was Quibi before Quibi was Quibi, with the same lack of detail for content.

Meanwhile, my sympathies go out to the hundreds of folks losing their jobs at Warner Media in this consolidation. That’s never good to hear.

Most Important Story of the Week – 19 June 20: Live Sports Rights Get Another Big Bump

Does anyone else watch Penn and Teller’s Fool Us? Probably, though it’s not cool to admit it with all the great peak TV shows to watch. In my defense, if you have a four year old, it makes for good family co-viewing. (Narcos does not.) Anyways, I love the magic analogy for how business leaders should use the entertainment biz news.

Your eyes will be drawn to the shiny object, where the magician wants you to look, but the real action is happening elsewhere.

Take this week. You may have your eyes gazing at the AMC mask controversy. It’s buzzy and everyone’s talking about it. (I’ll mention this story with the bigger news, which was the Tenet date move.) Same for new email service Hey and their fight with Apple. (Which in fairness was inches from being the biggest story this week.)

If you’re looking for the story that really is important, shift your gaze to lowly cable channels TNT/TBS…

Most Important Story of the Week – Turner Sports nearing (another) record MLB deal 

Before I started writing this week’s column, I was thinking there was a chance that I’d finally update my series on “How Coronavirus will Impact…” on sports. Alas, there is too much to cover to fit in this column.

However, I can tell you that this little nugget of news will make that column. This Sports Biz Journal headline says it all

Screen Shot 2020-06-19 at 10.57.33 AM

Now first the caveat. The headline is that the average value of the baseball deal increased 40% for the average price per year. This is “true”, but also a bit misleading. And I’m here for nothing else but to take headlines and put them into a more precise context. So the raw numbers are that the previous deal cost $325 million per year and the new deal is $470 per year. A 40% increase.

However, the previous deal was 8 years long. The new deal is 7 years long. What this means is that in practice, year over year, the growth rate for sports media rights is about 5%. Here’s how this looks in a chart if you assume a 5% increase in sports rights year over year:

Screen Shot 2020-06-19 at 12.20.33 PMIs 5% a good growth rate? Absolutely. Many businesses would kill for their revenue to increase that much year over year. Is it much less than 40%? Yes. Be careful out their when reading big numbers.

Besides quibbling over context, what else does this mean for the business of entertainment?

First, we keep waiting for the big tech giant to make a splash…

Another major deal without a M-FAANG plunking down for sports rights. The biggest barrier to me seems to be reach. The worry is if you go exclusively with Amazon or Apple, for example, you’re artificially cutting off a big chunk of your potential customers. Sure, lots of folks have Prime, but many less know how to watch Prime Video. So the wait continues.

..And linear channels are NOT abandoning sports rights.

Most likely, because we live in times of huge uncertainty, the sports leagues continue to go back to their current partners. And they are continuing to spend the same amount even as always. Which is notable because there are definite signs of reckoning for both advertising spends and affiliate fees as customers cut the cord. If you revenues go down while your costs go up–which seems to be the case for TNT/TBS–that’s bad. (The likely thing to give is scripted programming at both.)

Second, for now, the market sees the impact of coronavirus limited to this year.

This is the first deal of the coronavirus era and it looks shockingly like the old deals. (See my next point.) If Covid-19 cancels the next MLB season, then this deal wouldn’t make any sense. Clearly the buyers of sports rights are assuming it won’t. Even then, it seems to me that most sports leagues are assuming business as usual when it comes to live sports. (More on this in a future article.)

Fourth, prices keep going up at a steady rate. 

At the end of last year the PGA extended its deal with CBS/NBC in a deal very similar to the MLB deal. (An announced 60% increase, but spread out over 9 years.) This point is worth repeating since the common sense seems to be that rights are increasing, when I’d say they are holding steady. Meanwhile, I have wondered before if we’ll see the sports media rights bubble pop. Instead, sports rights are fairly resilient. As such, I’d expect 4-5% combined average growth rates to continue.

(If you want to read my deep dive on sports rights, I’d send you to Athletic Director’s U where I went fairly deep on the subject. You can also download my data here.)

Runner-Up for Story of the Week – Apple vs Hey (and the streaming wars)

This week I happened to be rereading Deep Work by Cal Newport and he mentioned David Heinemeier Hansson, one of the partners of Basecamp and the inventor of Ruby on Rails programming language. I happen to follow the Basecamp folks on Twitter and I hadn’t made this explicit connection yet. (And yes, rereading Deep Work is a reminder that I need to “quit social media” and spend less time on Twitter.)

If you follow the Basecamp folks, though, you know that this week they launched their solution to email called Hey. They let users pay on their website, and of course the application is downloadable to iPhones–since likely most of their new users have iPhones and iPads. This is where the problem comes in. Apple objected to Basecamp, telling them that unless they authorize payments through their app store they’ll blacklist their application.

As others have laid out better, the core of this fight is over the fact that Apple controls the gateway, and Basecamp isn’t big enough to hurt Apple’s business on paper. (For example, Apple does not enforce this rule with Netflix.) But since they are a gateway, they can charge a 30% fee to essentially offer very little ongoing value. (Setting up the app store added value; maintaining it much less so.) What do we call a 30% fee for little value? Rents. Or taxes. 

We’ll see where this goes as for the anti-monopolist energy rising across America. In the meantime, I see two insights for entertainment:

Insight 1: Apple’s Service Revenue May Be Rising for Non-Entertainment Related Reasons

I’ve been fairly skeptical of Apple TV+’s performance since before it launched. (See here or here.) Yet, last quarter, when they had record services revenue, many analysts and observers credited this to their new multimedia efforts. Yet, take a gander at this quote from Stratechery’s Ben Thompson:

Screen Shot 2020-06-19 at 10.00.33 AM

The challenge for us as analysts trying to determine how Apple TV+ is doing is that it’s the blackest of black boxes in streaming right now. Well, Prime Video is pretty unknown too. But with Apple TV+, we don’t know how much revenue, subscriber or viewership they have. And given that Apple bundles everything from insurance to payments to music in “services”, untangling that knot will be impossible. 

This Thompson quote speaks to the idea that it is much more likely that other service revenue (think Apple Care or App Store) is driving the business instead of the multimedia stuff (think Arcade, News, TV+ and Music). That’s going to be my position until I see good data otherwise.

Insight 2: Any Decrease in In-app Purchases Would be Great for Streamers

In other words, this fight between Hey and Apple is just an extension of the AT&T and Roku/Amazon fights. Indeed, the terms are fairly similar. Roku, Amazon and Apple are hardware/operating system owners that allow third party apps. And they charge a 30% tax to work on their system.

If the antitrust authorities get involved, it could be a game changer for the streamers. Imagine a ruling in the EU that Apple is capped at 5% rents on in-app purchases. At 5%, the streamers would likely all allow in-app purchases. That’s much more reasonable fee. That would mean they could also potentially lower prices and still make the same revenue.

Is this likely? Not in the United States, but maybe in the EU. So it’s worth monitoring to see how these fees evolve.

Data of the Week – Xfinity VOD From Vulture’s Buffering Newsletter

Read More

Most Important Story of the Week and Other Good Reads – 2 August 2019: Sprint & T-Mobile Clear Another Hurdle

Talk about an easy choice. I told you last Friday’s news about Sprint/T-Mobile would be the most important story of the week and nothing has stepped up to replace it.

The Most Important Story of the Week – Sprint & T-Mobile is Now Very Close

The merger of a German telecom giant’s US cellular operation (T-Mobile) with a Japanese tech-telecommunications giant US cellular operation (Sprint) is almost complete. It got the Federal government’s blessing via the antitrust division of the Department of Justice not moving to block it. This merger would fundamentally reshape cellular communications in the United States. Moreover, the deal would produce some strange winners and loses. But instead of recycling the “winners and losers” conceit, let’s try “who does this help, hurt or hinder?”

Help: AT&T and Verizon

And don’t let them tell you different. As the number of companies in an industry shifts, the amount of competition decreases and hence prices (and profits) rise. Eventually, if you get to one single company, well it becomes the monopolist pricing situation. In this situation, they extract all the value they can from customers. If you imagine this as a timeline of possible cell phone concentration, well we’re two notches from complete monopoly. 

Even if AT&T and Verizon have a stronger new competitor (and don’t forget AT&T tried to buy T-Mobile this decade), going from four to three competitors is good for all the incumbents.

Help: Dish (and its new mobile provider)

Dish is probably in the most trouble of the MVPDs as they face declining video subscribers, but don’t have the ability–like cable companies–to just raise the prices on internet access. (Better margins on that business too for cable companies.) As a solution, Dish has been buying up wireless spectrum with the now revealed plan to launch their own cellular network. If this merger had been blocked, Dish would have lacked that pivot ability and would have had to spend much more to get in the cellular game. Whether Dish can truly pull this off remains to be seen, but this merger will help.

Help: Softbank

Read Bloomberg’s Tara Lachappelle for this one:

Image 2 - Softbank

And that last sentence helps reinforce that this deal helps all the incumbents as well as Sprint/T-Mobile.

Hold: 5G Implementation

The biggest explanation for “why let them merge?” seems to be “for faster 5G implementation”. The challenge is that no matter what companies say to get approval for a merger, they don’t have to really do any of it. This line from Matt Yglesias’ article on the merger stuck with me, referencing Comcast’s merger with NBC-Universal:

IMAGE 3 Vox Quote

Even if the company’s promise 5G implementation, if they fail and they’re already merged, what is the government going to do? Break them up? When was the last time that happened? Under an Elizabeth Warren administration, maybe her Department of Justice would. Under everyone else? Probably nothing would happen.

Meanwhile, the easiest way to advance giant infrastructure projects is government spending on infrastructure. If you want 5G, you just pay cellular phone companies to build it. We could debate the method (direct government spending, low interest loans, tax rebates) but government spending gets things built faster than the private sector using capital markets. This merger may accelerate 5G investment but could just as easily not because of the lack of a competition motive.

Hinder: Antitrust Enforcement

Antitrust enforcement in the Trump Presidency (and this isn’t political, but about forecasting) has been very uneven. The Department of Justice sued to stop AT&T’s merger, even though Disney’s merger with Fox was arguably larger. Then Trump’s DoJ supports the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, even as it launches investigations into big tech for monopoly power. Overall, there is just a level of incoherence that a lot of smart people have pointed out.

Hinder: Giant Tech Companies

More consolidation means more control over mobile access to the internet, with potential restrictions on the big players from Netflix to Amazon to Google, depending on the service and need to access the cloud. At least that’s my near term take. Longer term, I’m intrigued by the theory that 5G will strengthen the cloud based companies, which could benefit Amazon, Microsoft and Google. Still, consolidation in one industry increases that specific industry’s buying and selling power, which hurts the businesses that have to use that platform. Fortunately for them, the tech giants are huge.

Hinder: Regulatory Certainty

Before the Department of Justice blessed the merger, many state Attorney Generals had sued to block the merger. That lawsuit may not start until December. So this merger may go through, or may still be blocked or in limbo for years. That’s uncertainty for everyone which is bad for business.

Hurt: Either Hulu or Netflix

Both T-Mobile and Sprint have deals offering free Netflix and Hulu respectively to their customers. Invariably, this flood of subsidized customers helps boost overall subscriber numbers. Will the new T-Mobile keep both deals? Unlikely, so inevitably one side will lose those subscribers from the mobile deal.

Hurt: The Unaffiliated Streamers

Related to the subscribers is one of the next “carriage wars” I described a few weeks back. Even with 5G, mobile data and bandwidth will be a weapon mobile carriers can use against streaming companies. In other words, if you only have three mobile carriers, they can demand extra fees to carry your streaming content over it’s airwaves. In economics, that’s called rent seeking. Given their leverage, it’s hard for me to see how that doesn’t happen. Which leads to our last point…

Hurt: Customers

I already told you this above, but some combination of increased prices or decreased quality is in the offing for customers. My most likely guess is a hypothetical roll out of 5G, but at much higher prices than in a competitive industry.

Other Contenders for Most Important Story

BritBox Plans to Launch in UK

Thanks to Twitter reader Jack Genovese for this suggestion. And even though I had Tweeted out the Axios Media newsletter on this last week, I somehow ignored it myself for last week’s column. The news is that BritBox, an ITV/BBC joint streaming platform that launched in North America will launch in the UK. Which feels slightly odd that the British are now in a territory where by definition all their shows are already, but in a cord-cutting world it all works out.

Tthe update this week is that all that good BBC back catalogue–the type of stuff that helped grow Netflix early on–is going to HBO Max. Which seems weird that it wouldn’t go to BritBox itself. My guess is that AT&T just had deeper pockets and is willing to spend a la Netflix in the early days. Meanwhile, Digiday says that while everyone goes Millennial, they’ve gone older to strong results.

CBS All-Access Surging in Dish Carriage Dispute

Read More