AT&T Can't Get Out Of Its Own Way As It Tries To 'Disrupt' Traditional TV

from the meet-the-new-boss... dept

So we've noted a few times how giant telecom providers, as companies that have spent the better part of the last century as government-pampered monopolies, are adorable when they try (then inevitably fail) to innovate or compete. Verizon's attempt to pivot from curmudgeonly old phone company to sexy new media darling, for example, has been a cavalcade of clumsy errors, missteps, and wasted money.

Much like that time Verizon tried to launch a "tech news" website that banned reporters from talking about net neutrality or government surveillance. Or the time it launched a Millennial-focused video streaming service nobody wanted to watch. Or the time it bought Tumblr (via Yahoo), banned porn, watched everybody leave, then had to sell the whole thing for a song.

AT&T hasn't been much better as it has tried to "disrupt" the TV space. You'll recall the company spent more than $150 billion to acquire Time Warner and DirecTV in a bid to dominate streaming and the online video advertising space. But the deals saddled AT&T with so much debt, it forced the company to raise rates despite rising competition, driving many of these customers to the exits. AT&T also launched a rotating array of video brands (more than 7!) that were so confusing, it even dumbfounded the company's own customers.

Hoping to right the ship, AT&T this week launched another variant of its streaming video platform. Despite the fact that US consumers are clearly tired of proprietary cable boxes, sneaky fees, and quickly-ballooning promotional rates, AT&T apparently thought it would be a good idea to "compete" in the streaming space by launching a platform that incorporates all three:

"After 12 months paying the promotional rate, you pay the "prevailing rate," which is double or close to double the first-year base rates before taxes and fees. Under current prices, the $49.99 promotional rate for the entry-level "Entertainment" package would rise to $93 per month in the second year. The promotional $54.99 rate for the Choice plan would double to $110; the $64.99 promotional rate for the Xtra package would rise to $124; and the $69.99 promotional rate for the Ultimate package would rise to $135.

Those prices do not include an $8.49 per-month fee for regional sports networks, which applies to the Choice, Xtra, and Ultimate packages.

It's just astonishing to watch a company that has been bleeding subscribers by the boatload survey the market, carefully consider its next steps, then double down on all of the annoying shit that brought them to this point:

"Signing up for AT&T TV requires a two-year contract, with an early termination fee of $15 for each month left on the agreement at the time of cancellation. A $20 activation fee is waived if you order online...Each customer gets one Android-powered AT&T TV device and a Google Assistant-powered voice remote included in the plan, but you have to pay $120 for each additional TV box.

Telecom has long proven to be a pretty insular industry, with executives that tend to surround themselves with yes men who applaud every misstep. It's reflected in the telecom policy analyst and think tank space, and the revolving door regulators that pass from telecom to governance. They literally can't see how clumsy monopoly dominance has frustrated consumers, broken the market, and resulted in high prices, terrible service, and a cavalcade of bad ideas. As such, they literally can't see the best way to appeal to these users either, because to them...there's no problem that needs fixing.

Filed Under: at&t tv, disruption, streaming, streaming video, tv
Companies: at&t

T-Mobile's 'Revolutionary' New TV Service Looks Like The Same Old Crap

from the meet-the-new-boss... dept

So we've noted for a while that T-Mobile's brand reputation as a fiesty consumer-friendly disruptor is only really skin deep. While the T-Mobile of a few years ago certainly added some much needed competition to the wireless sector at first, more recently the company has started to look a lot like the bigger competitors (AT&T, Verizon) it pretends to be superior to. From mocking groups like the EFF to opposing net neutrality, the company isn't all that different from the companies its brash CEO likes to make fun of. Especially as it snuggles up to Trump to gain approval for a merger with that Sprint nobody asked for.

Meanwhile, the company's promised efforts at "disruption" aren't quite what they used to be either. The company's long-hyped new TV service, for example, was unveiled this week and doesn't appear to be much different from the traditional offerings the company had promised to supplant:

"Ignoring the trend toward less or no hardware, T-Mobile is introducing TVision, a cookbook-size box that must be plugged into home broadband connections. The $100-a-month, in-home TV package will be offered in eight cities, starting with 150 channels, including local broadcasts and regional sports networks. Some streaming apps like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video will be loaded on the device, though they’ll require separate subscriptions. Premium channels like HBO will also cost extra."

In short, T-Mobile appears to have simply re-invented the bloated cable TV bundle and cable box. That's not likely to appeal to users who can simply go out and buy their own streaming hardware, then install a universe of independent streaming apps they can rotate in and out at their leisure. Of course entertaining T-Mobile CEO John Legere dressed the new product (which is basically just a reskinning of the pricey Layer3 TV service it acquired a few years back) as something substantively more revolutionary than it actually is:

Legere has spent the last few years mercilessly mocking (often quite justly) both AT&T and Verizon's own forays into video, only to release something that is just as droll. There's not much here that's likely to make much headway into the market, given the entire point of "cutting the cord" is to get away from expensive channel bundles and locked down set top boxes in the first place.

Watching T-Mobile change over the next few years is going to be interesting. The company effectively built its brand on being a consumer ally that's different from traditional, entrenched players. But as the company has pushed distortion after distortion in its bid to gain regulatory approval for its Sprint merger, it continues to prove that's not really the case. And if the deal's approved, the sudden 25% reduction in major competitors is going to open the door to less competition, higher prices, and less innovation--all of the things T-Mobile and CEO Legere profess to be breathlessly dedicated to.

Filed Under: disruption, john legere, mobile phone service, tv service
Companies: t-mobile

Cannes Bans Netflix Films From Competition Because The Internet Is Bad (Or Something)

from the get-off-my-lawn dept

Cannes this week declared that the long-running festival would be banning streaming services like Netflix from being able to win the Palme d’Or. That said, festival leaders weren't able to offer a coherent reason why. Festival boss Thierry Fremaux apparently tried to offer something vaguely resembling an explanation to a variety of different news outlets, but wasn't particularly successful. Most of the arguments made by Fremaux to the press had something to do with Netflix being different (gasp) from the traditional film industry production and criticism model:

"The Netflix people loved the red carpet and would like to be present with other films. But they understand that the intransigence of their own model is now the opposite of ours,” Thierry Fremaux said."

The heart of the ban appears to be a fusion of protectionist concerns about how streaming could harm the traditional French film industry and brick-and-mortar theaters (aka: fear of competition). France has a cultural exception law that requires a percentage of all box office, TV and streaming revenues be used to finance homegrown and foreign films. That law also forces a very outdated and obnoxious release window: namely a 36-month delay between theatrical release and streaming availability. Streaming providers' disdain for such artificial and arbitrary restrictions has been ruffling feathers for years.

In other words, this is really just the same old story about people making silly decisions because of fear of something new disrupting legacy business models that may not work as well in the modern era. But because Cannes just can't come out and admit that, we instead got a heavy dose of disdain for the internet in general:

"Fremaux said the while new players like Netflix and Amazon are enabling directors to make big budget films, they are creating “hybrids” that aren’t TV and aren't quite film. “Cinema [still] triumphs everywhere even in this golden age of series,” he said. “The history of cinema and the history of the internet are two different things."

It's 2018 and that's not entirely true anymore but who cares, get off my lawn!

Cannes has previously banned made for TV movies to ensure a certain quality bar in competition. The organization appears to be using that ban to justify banning Netflix, despite the fact that Netflix is now spending billions on producing its in-house, award winning fare. Because many of these films only saw limited runs in theaters (or no run at all) doesn't automatically equate to low quality, and banning streaming services from awards isn't likely to magically save an industry unwilling to evolve.

Of course this disdain for all things new isn't solely a French phenomenon. Stephen Spielberg recently stated that Netflix films shouldn't be allowed to win Oscar awards, though here too you'll notice that the justifications are arguably flimsy, with an attempt to equate "streaming" with inevitably low quality:

"Once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie,” he told ITV News. “You certainly, if it’s a good show, deserve an Emmy, but not an Oscar. I don’t believe films that are just given token qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week should qualify for the Academy Award nomination."

Why not? Who knows! If the content is awful it will get rejected from such competitions anyway. And trying to fend off streaming at this point is like trying to slow the flow of a river with just your hands. The move is pretty clearly an effort by Fremaux to project a certain standard of excellence (he also announced that selfies would be banned at this year's festival), but the message it's actually sending the world is more of the "I'm a Luddite" variety.

Filed Under: cannes, competition, disruption, films, innovation, movies, protectionism, streaming, thierry fremaux
Companies: cannes film festival, netflix

T-Mobile Not So Subtly Hints That It Wants To Disrupt The Cable TV Industry

from the a-swift-kick-in-the-pants dept

While T-Mobile isn't without its faults (like its opposition to net neutrality, or the time its CEO mocked the EFF), there's little doubt that T-Mobile has been a good thing for the wireless industry. The company has managed to drag the industry kicking and screaming in an overall positive direction, including the elimination of the carrier-subsidized handset model, the elimination of annoying hidden fees, and the recent return to more popular unlimited data options. And its brash CEO John Legere, while sometimes teetering into absurd caricature, has at least managed to bring a sense of industry to a traditionally droll telecom sector.

And while T-Mobile had been mocking AT&T and Verizon's forays into video as "distractions," the company this week strongly hinted that it may bring a little bit of disruption to a sector that needs it most. Both Legere and T-Mobile COO Mike Sievert made numerous comments during their earnings call this week making it pretty obvious they wanted to test the market's reaction to the idea of some kind of T-Mobile video service:

"Talk about a poster child for an industry that has really kind of ignored customers and ignored customer cares and gouged at every corner,” Legere said of the pay-TV market during T-Mobile’s earnings call Tuesday. “Clearly, I salivate when I think about the possibilities of changing some of those (video) industries. And frankly, I’m fascinated with how little AT&T has done since they spent the mother lode buying DirecTV, and pretty much have let it sit on the side, and still be an old, crappy linear TV that they bundle weakly with their unlimited offer, so maybe more to come."

Subtle. Legere didn't get into specifics about how T-Mobile would enter the sector, but one possibility remains some kind of M&A with Dish Network, which has plenty of TV assets and a long-harbored desire to jump into the wireless sector (Dish has been not-so-quietly hoarding wireless spectrum for a long while). Like Legere, Sievert also spent more than a little time making fun of the cable sector, which continues to sport some of the lowest customer satisfaction ratings in any industry in America:

"The data on this is really clear. The cable industry is statistically one of the most unloved industries in the history of the consumer economy. So, obviously, it’s ripe for innovation in this area,” T-Mobile COO Mike Sievert said on the call. “I’ll tell you one thing, in 2017 we will reach the point where people have more screen time on mobile devices than on any other kind of screen, that’s really something incredible when it comes to watching their video. So we’ll see how this convergence unfolds, but in it we’re where the industry is going, not where it’s coming from, and we’ve got a brand that really resonates with people and possibly could resonate in an industry that’s even more maligned than we found ours four years ago when we got here."

A Dish M&A is one of the more palatable consolidation possibilities facing the telecom sector under what's expected to be a dramatically more M&A-friendly Trump administration. T-Mobile is also a rumored acquisition target for Comcast or Charter Communications, neither of which would be likely to continue T-Mobile's foray into price competition or disruption. Similarly, a Sprint acquisition of T-Mobile would reduce the number of overall wireless carriers in the space, reducing competition and potentially putting T-Mobile's disruptive run to an ignominious end.

Filed Under: cable tv, competiton, disruption, john legere, tv
Companies: t-mobile

Disney's Iger On ESPN: We'll Disrupt When We Damn Well Feel Like It

from the worldwide-leader-in-denial dept

Last year, Disney stock took a repeated beating as Wall Street started to realize the company wasn't faring particularly well in the face of Internet video revolution. Tens of billions in stock value instantly evaporated as investors learned that ESPN had lost 7 million customers in just the last two years. Evidence suggests this was largely thanks to the fact that ESPN leadership was utterly oblivious to the cord cutting and cord trimming trend, or the fact that a growing number of customers (the majority, in fact) are simply tired of paying for a channel they don't watch, yet pay an arm and a leg for.

To try and soothe nervous investors, Disney and ESPN executives have been making the rounds lately in an attempt to "change the narrative" on cord cutting (read: pretend the company wasn't caught with its pants down). ESPN Boss John Skipper, for example, recently admitted the company is seeing subscriber losses due to users shifting to so-called "skinny" bundles, but tried to argue these were older users the company didn't really want anyway.

This week, Disney CEO Bob Iger is the one making the rounds, though you may not be able to hear what he's saying over the sound of his own denial:

"The notion that either the expanded basic bundle is experiencing its demise or that ESPN is crating in any way from a [subscribers] perspective is just ridiculous,” Iger said at one point. “Sports is too popular.”

But despite what Iger thinks, ESPN is not synonymous with sports, and cratering under the load of an evolving market is exactly what's happening. For decades, ESPN enjoyed being part of channel bundles that generated revenue regardless of whether or not consumers actually watched it. As the traditional cable bundle gets broken up, ESPN's faced with the fact that 56% of cable users no longer want to watch the channel if it means saving a little money. In response, ESPN's trying to sue companies trying to give consumers what they want, a losing proposition long term.

As alternative streaming options rise, ESPN subscribers will dip, and the company's long-term (and hugely expensive) sports programming deals are going to start feeling very heavy. ESPN could try and offer a direct streaming service, but with dropping subscribers and soaring programming costs, the numbers aren't very pretty. Just don't point any of this out, or, like pay TV analyst and frequent ESPN critic Richard Greenfield recently found out, certain media outlets may decide to set you on fire in the Hollywood town square.

Like so many legacy industries used to revenues they haven't actually had to earn in years, it's pretty clear that Iger believes that ESPN is the one that gets to decide when it gets disrupted and when it has to dirsupt:

"We’re not going to sit back and let the disrupters just disrupt,” Iger said. “We’re going to participate in some of that disruption. And we’ll decide when the time is right to be more disruptive than we have been if we really think the business model is shifting rapidly. So far we do not see that."

Like most people, ESPN execs see what they want to see. Wall Street now sees it, which is why Iger's flapping his arms and doing this particular chicken dance in the first place. It's all part and parcel of the cable and broadcast industry's sincere belief that the legacy cable TV cash cow is going to live forever -- so they really don't have to rush to adapt -- or compete on price -- any time soon. But years of denial and inflexibility are starting to catch up with executives mentally stuck in the late nineties, and if 2015 was any indication, 2016's going to demolish any lingering fantasies.

Filed Under: bob iger, disruption, espn
Companies: disney, espn

Time Warner Eyes Hulu Stake, Wants Service To Remove Current Seasons Of Shows

from the don't-innovate-too-much dept

We've discussed for years now how Hulu is hamstrung by the fact that it's owned by the traditional cable and broadcast industry. Owners 21st Century Fox, Disney and Comcast/NBC have gone out of their way to ensure the service is never too disruptive -- lest it hurt the traditional cable cash cow. And that's been the cable industry's mantra for years now -- crow ceaselessly about how you're "innovating," while simultaneously trying not to innovate too much, lest your customers realize your legacy TV service is absurdly expensive, inflexible, and outdated.

As the industry has slowly realized that it can no longer just pretend cord cutting doesn't exist -- things have improved slightly, with Hulu making a renewed effort to invest in original programming and dramatically broadening its content catalog to better compete with Amazon and Netflix. The company has also listened to consumer complaints and now offers an ad free version -- while placing fewer ads in the ad supported option. Hulu is also attracting new investors, with reports that Time Warner is looking to give a $2 billion cash infusion in exchange for a 25% stake.

But while Time Warner isn't making it a condition of the deal, the company is making it clear that it would like to see Hulu pull current seasons of shows in a misguided belief that it can turn back time:

"Time Warner believes that the presence of full, current seasons on Hulu—or anywhere else outside the bounds of pay-TV—is harmful to its owners because it contributes to people dropping their pay-TV subscriptions, or "cutting the cord." In the discussions about taking a 25% equity stake in Hulu, Time Warner has told the site's owners that it ultimately wants episodes from current seasons off the service, at least in their existing form, although that is not a condition for its investment, according to the people familiar with the discussions.

The problem is that Time Warner would join Comcast in sharing the delusion that you can be both simultaneously disruptive and innovative on the streaming side, while still magically preventing traditional cable customers from noticing and cutting the cord. Comcast was barred from meddling in matters of Hulu management as a condition of its acquisition of NBC, but it's a condition Comcast largely ignored. It's also a seven year condition that will expire shortly after Time Warner seals its new ownership stake, meaning a double dose of myopic, backward-looking leadership at Hulu at precisely the wrong time.

Though many in the insular cable industry ecosystem like to pretend otherwise, it's simply no longer a debate: consumers are increasingly cutting the cord and migrating to cheaper, more flexible viewing options. Traditional TV customers get 194 channels, but they only watch, on average, about 17 of them. 16% of consumers cut the cord last year, while 23% of consumers engaged in "cord-trimming" (reducing their overall cable package) in some way. 57% of those asked, unsurprisingly, say that price is the biggest reason they're looking to shake things up.

It's not an enviable position for the traditional TV industry to be in. To seriously combat cord cutting, it needs to offer a more flexible product at a lower cost -- something that (with a few "skinny bundle" exceptions) it absolutely refuses to do. What we get instead is turf protection (broadband usage caps), a boat load of denial and failed "me too" services like Comcast Streampix that, thanks to fear of cannibalizing the legacy cash cow, are neither here nor there. The problem is, if Hulu isn't willing to offer what consumers want, Netflix, Amazon, or some other company certainly will.

Filed Under: cable tv, disruption, ownership, streaming, streaming tv, tv
Companies: comcast, hulu, time warner