Monday, December 30, 2019

Netflix: The Best of the Decade


On November 24th, Taylor Swift was recognized as the Artist of the Decade by the American Music Awards.  If a similar award was given to a firm in the video streaming industry it would have to go to its pioneer, Netflix.  At the start of the last decade, Netflix had 12 million subscribers, all in the U.S., and most of them consuming video content on DVDs received in the mail.  Just one year into the decade, Netflix had expanded into Canada, grew its subscriber base to 20 million, and began delivering a majority of its licensed content over the internet instead of through the postal system. 
With the floodgates opened, Netflix would spend the rest of the decade adding award-winning content to its platform and scaling across the globe.  It will end the decade with nearly 160 million subscribers in over 190 countries.  It will end the decade with more of its content being created exclusively for Netflix viewers.  It will end the decade being ten-times more profitable than what it was at the start.  It will end the decade, however, with having to face new competitive threats from former business partners. 
While sticking to its core competency proved to be the right strategic move for Netflix over the past ten years, will it continue to be going forward?  Afterall, the market entrants are no small fries.  They are legends that spent most of the last decade a bit complacent and unwilling to adapt to changing consumer taste preferences   But, that is now a thing of the past.  The disruption to Netflix and the broader industry is coming from content providers going direct to consumer with their own offerings, bypassing content aggregators like cable and satellite providers.  Leading the charge is a re-energized, re-focused Disney.
Since the inception of cable TV, the success of broadcasters (e.g. ABC, CBS, NBC) and cable networks (e.g. ESPN, HBO, Discovery) was tethered to the rise in popularity among households to pay for a bundle of channels delivered to their television set via a cable box or satellite transmission. At its peak in 2009, 100 million households subscribed.  However, fed-up with rising prices for these fat channel bundles, households began cutting the cord early in the decade.  As broadband technology improved and more streaming services (e.g. Hulu, Amazon Prime) became available, cord-cutting accelerated.  The decade will end with less than 88 million U.S. households subscribing to payTV.
For Disney and the other content owners, the challenge is and will continue to be how to hold onto their lucrative relationships with payTV operators (for now) while building out their own competing platforms.  While it is uncertain how consumers will respond to unbundled, somewhat customizable choices for how they allocate their screen time, Disney is primed to be a favorite among consumers and the “one to beat” among its competitors in the decade ahead.  Its success will derive from its extensive content library and theatrical dominance combined with recent acquisitions (e.g. BAMTech and Fox) and product launches (ESPN+ and Disney+).  Its success, however, won’t come easy and cheap.  Disney will have to fiercely compete with the likes of Comcast, ViacomCBS, AT&T (Time Warner), and, yes, Netflix to attract and maintain subscribers.  It will have to spend a lot of money on content creation.  It will have to/want to acquire content by scooping up smaller, fringe firms that have found it difficult to sustain profitability on their own with insufficient scale and consumer loyalty.  In ten years, expect that the video streaming market is much bigger and dominated by the same handful of giant firms (including Netflix) that control the big screen.  Stay tuned!

Monday, November 18, 2019

Update: Legere staying on at T-Mobile until end of April

Thank goodness for T-Mobile employees, customers, and shareholders, Legere is staying put until his contract expires at the end of April.  Although I think more time at the helm would have been better, Mike Sievert, current President, COO, and Board Member at T-Mobile is the natural succession choice.

Sunday, November 17, 2019

Legere Needs to Stay at T-Mobile


In other news this week, WeWorks, controlled by SoftBank, was rumored to be courting T-Mobile’s CEO, John Legere, to be its new CEO.  SoftBank currently is the majority shareholder in Sprint, the company merging with T-Mobile in early 2020, if a settlement with 15 states trying to block the merger is reached.  In the twists and turns of the T-Mobile-Sprint merger, Marcelo Claure, who is the executive chairman of Sprint, is also the COO of SoftBank.
 
The attractiveness of Legere to be the savior of WeWorks makes sense.  His success in elevating T-Mobile to the 3rd largest wireless carrier in the U.S. with his eccentric and “make it happen approach” is undisputable.  But, if T-Mobile is going to get through the court case with the states AND live up to all its promises to the federal and state agencies, it needs Legere at the helm.  No ands, ifs, or buts.

What a Week It Was For Disney


Last week, Disney introduced Disney+, its new streaming service.  The price is $6.99/month as a standalone product or $12.99/month when bundled with Hulu and ESPN+.  The bundle price is the same as what Netflix charges for its most popular offering.  Within the first day, 10 million households had subscribed. 

With full operational control of Hulu since the spring, Disney also announced that effective December 18, the price of its Hulu+Live service will go from $45/month to $55/month, a 22% increase.  The price increase comes 6-months after a 12.5% increase in January (from $40 to $45). 
If you had any doubt, the two announcements “define” what market power looks like!  While Netflix had the first mover advantage and has grown to over 150 million global subscribers in a dozen years of streaming , Disney’s huge brand identity and intellectual property assets (which it no longer licenses to Netflix), makes its “late” entry into the market a huge concern for Netflix.  

For now, Disney can enjoy the fanfare and the excitement around the launch.  But, in 2020, the market is going to get more crowded with other media giants (e.g. NBC Peacock and AT&T’s HBO Max) entering with their own direct-to-consumer entertainment choices that will be priced to attract and retain subscribers.  While it is not a zero-sum game or an "everyone will be a winner” situation, expect that, when all is said and done, Disney will be one of the major players in this space. 

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

HBO Max - A Potential Winner?


Yesterday, AT&T (WarnerMedia) announced its new streaming service HBO Max.  The service will launch in May of 2020 and will be offered for free or discounted to subscribers of AT&T’s premium unlimited wireless plans or one of its MVPD services (U-verse, DirecTV).  Entering a market using well-established platforms (wireless, MVPD), with millions of subscribers on each, and then adding the cherry-on-top of price incentives, gives AT&T a huge competitive advantage in the increasingly crowded market for streaming services.  It is not a winner-take-all market as households will subscribe to multiple services.  However, you certainly would expect that AT&T will be one of the winners.  Much like you would expect that Google, Amazon, and Facebook (BIG TECH) will succeed when they introduce applications and new services on their online platforms.

So, it begs the questions.  Does the vertical integration of platform and content, created with the 2018 merger of AT&T and Time Warner, give the media-telecom firm an unfair market advantage?  The DOJ was concerned about that and it is why it filed an antitrust suit to block the merger.  (The courts did not have the same concern and approved the merger.)  This summer, the DOJ opened a broad antitrust review into the BIG TECH firms’ business practices.  If harmful conduct is discovered, what action might regulators take?  Would it be right to extend review (and action) to other firms with similar vertical structures, like AT&T?

The review could start with the year-long carriage dispute between AT&T and its satellite competitor, Dish.  Since last November, Dish has not carried HBO, including during the spring release of the final season of Game of Thrones.  Dish believes that AT&T’s behavior in contract negotiations has been anticompetitive, using its leverage to foreclose access to the premium content favored by many. 

Monday, October 28, 2019

"No Sacred Cow"


On Monday, AT&T released its third quarter earnings and announced a settlement of sorts with activist investor, Elliott Management, that commits, over the near term, to reducing debt and avoiding major acquisitions among other things. 

Probably the most concerning part of the financial results was the continued hemorrhaging of TV subscribers.  In the quarter, AT&T’s Entertainment Group experienced declines of greater than a 5% (1.163 million) in premium TV subscribers and 17% (.195 million) in AT&T Now subscribers.  For “now” though, DirecTV is staying put as part of the firm’s assets and strategy “to meet growing demand for content and connectivity.” With Elliott and other participants on the earnings call, AT&T’s CEO, Randall Stephenson, said that “[DirectTV] will be an important part of our strategy over the next three years. But no portion of our business is exempt.”


Friday, October 25, 2019

The Tunney Act in "Action"


In July, the Department of Justice (DOJ) approved, with conditions, the $26 billion merger between the third and fourth largest wireless telecom carriers, T-Mobile and Sprint.  As required by the Tunney Act (a.k.a. the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act of 1974), a federal court must review the terms of the proposed final judgement (consent decree) in civil antitrust cases to ensure that the outcome is in the public interest.  The process begins with the proposed consent degree and the DOJ’s Competitive Impact Statement being published in the Federal Registry.  That happened on August 12th.  Any person can then submit written comments about the proposed settlement to the DOJ’s Antitrust Division.  The 60-day window closed almost two-weeks ago.  Next, the DOJ submits the comments and a response to the court.  After that, the presiding judge, Timothy Kelly, will render his decision.  While the judge cannot block the merger, he could deem the remedies inadequate and seek modifications to the consent decree. If approved without changes, T-Mobile/Sprint could begin transferring assets to Dish, the new market entrant, ninety-days after the decision.
 
While most settlements are approved without much fanfare, there have been exceptions.  Most notable was the 1982 Modified Final Judgement in the United States v. AT&T monopoly case that laid-out the break-up of the Bell System.  Several parties in the T-Mobile-Sprint case have submitted comments to the DOJ.  On October 10th, the states asked the court to hold-off making a decision until after the states’ lawsuit is resolved.  (Oral arguments in that case are expected to begin in December.)  On Thursday, the DOJ stated that the states’ efforts to delay the court’s decision raised “serious constitutional concerns”.  And, around and around we go!

On a positive note, T-Mobile and Sprint were able to strike a deal this week with Colorado’s AG concerning jobs and 5G deployment in the state.  As a result, Colorado is no longer a party to the multi-state lawsuit.  That means ONLY 15 states and the District of Columbia remain on the lawsuit.  Let’s see what next week brings!
   

Saturday, October 19, 2019

Disney's Entry into Streaming -- Watch Out Netflix!


In a little over 3 weeks, Disney will launch its streaming service Disney+ for $6.99/month (or $69.99/year).  Subscribers will get access to movies and TV series from Disney, Pixar, National Geographic, Marvel, and Star Wars.  In a brilliant move, Disney is releasing the weekly Star Wars universe TV series, Mandalorian, at the launch of the streaming service.  Other brilliant moves include the offer to pre-order the service prior to November 12th, and the bundle for $13/month for Disney+ with Hulu and ESPN+.  The bundle, a combination of kids’ shows and movies (including the library of classics), entertainment for adults, and sports programming, seems an ideal package for many households.  Disney will need about 2 million subscribers to just make up the $150 million per year in licensing fees from Netflix that goes away at the end of the year.  Expect that threshold will be met quickly because of the value proposition that Disney is offering out of the gate.  The question is how will Netflix fare?  Without Disney content and a monthly price points of 12.99 (standard) and $15.99 (premium) will there be a larger than expected drop in Netflix subscribers?  Expect there will be challenges ahead for Netflix as its dominance in streaming will be challenged by well-financed, well-known competitors.

Friday, October 18, 2019

The CBS-Viacom Merger: Does Size Matter?


On paper, it looks good.  With an expectation that the merger of CBS and Viacom will be completed by yearend, there should be excitement in the air for this new company with its breadth of content (140K premium TV episodes, 3.6K+ film titles, contracts for live sports programming) and multiple distribution channels (broadcast and streaming).  The firm also anticipates a minimum of $500 million in cost savings.

Yet, because ViacomCBS’s annual content spend of $13 billion pales in comparison to Disney’s $27 billion; the value of its sports contracts with the NFL, NBA, NCAA basketball, and PGA golf (The Master’s) pales in comparison to the other broadcast networks; its direct-to-consumer subscriber counts for Showtime and CBS All Access pales in comparison to those for Netflix and HBO; and its share of box office receipts (approx. 5% in 2019 YTD) pales in comparison to the other major studios of Buena Vista (Disney), Warner Brothers (AT&T), NBCUniversal, and Sony/Columbia, there is little excitement for this deal.  It was seen as a must happen deal.  It was not seen as a WOW deal as its scale is not as large as the others.  But, how big does an entertainment company have to be?  Might a firm that is at a sufficient size in a market be big enough to be price competitive and profitable?  Afterall, when a firm becomes too large, inefficiencies can occur by trying to manage too many projects/units and too many people.  A firm focused on consistently delivering in a cost-effective way a product in the market that consumers value will be around for the long run.  Size is not everything!


Timing is Everything for a Merger: DirecTV and Dish?


In October of 2002, the FCC ruled that the combination of Dish (formerly Echostar Communications Corp.) and DirecTV (formerly owned by Hughes Electronics, a subsidiary of GM) in the multichannel video program distribution (“MVPD”) market would likely “harm consumers by: (1) eliminating an existing viable competitor in every market; (2) creating the potential for higher prices and lower service quality; and (3) negatively impacting future innovation.”  At the time, most markets had three competitors – the two satellite providers and a cable company (e.g. Comcast).  At the national level with 87.6 million MVPDs subscribers, the combined market share of the satellite firms summed to about 20 percent.  On a per market basis, the market shares were much higher and therefore a hypothetical merger would have increased the market power of both the satellite firm and its cable competitor.  At a time, when annual MVPD price increases were significantly outpacing inflation, the market needed more competition, not less.

Today, Dish and DirecTV account for about a third of the MVPD market. Today, the cable providers face increasing competition from the “fringe” – media and technology firms going direct to consumer with streamed content over the internet.  Today, an increasing number of households are cutting the cord and not subscribing at all to an MVPD service.  So, would today be the right time for a merger between the 2 satellite providers?  Would a merger be approved by regulators?  Market analysts suggest that, if the 2 firms combined, they would realize $2 billion in cost savings annually.  The synergies would help the firms, with their own skinny bundles (DirecTV Now and Dish Sling), compete in an increasingly crowded and fragmented market.  But, with Dish on the hook to buy Sprint’s assets to be a new entrant in the wireless telecom market, today may not be the right time.





Thursday, October 17, 2019

"Watching" Netflix


On Wednesday, Netflix released its third quarter 2018 financial results.  With better than expected earnings per share and growth in international subscribers, the market reacted positively to the numbers in after-hours trading.  Somewhat disappointing was slower than expected growth in the number of domestic subscribers.  A year-over-year comparison of subscriber numbers shows

Subscribers
3Q2018
3Q2019
% Change
Domestic
58.5M
60.6M
3.6
International
80.8M
97.7M
20.1
Total
139.3M
158.3M
13.6

In the domestic market, with a price increase from earlier this year that elevated churn, increased competition from major media and technology firms that are launching niche streaming platforms, and a maturing market, Netflix will need to continue to spend heavily on original content ($15 billion in 2019) to hold onto its dominant market position.  While Netflix feels that its breadth of content is its competitive advantage, others (e.g. Disney, WarnerMedia, and NBCU Peacock) could argue the same.  And, while competition for consumers’ time in watching entertainment is not a winner-take-all enterprise, there are pocket-book constraints and consumers may choice to subscribe to just a few options and may be more willing to unsubscribe at times if the “must-watch” content is not there. Hence, acquiring and retaining subscribers will be harder to do domestically.  Thankfully, Netflix has some room to run internationally.  And, its commitment to creating more programming in languages other than English will give it a leg-up on these other competitors.  


A Step Closer But Not Done: The T-Mobile-Sprint Merger


Yesterday, the FCC, in a 3-2 vote along party-lines (R-D), stated that the $26.5 billion T-Mobile-Sprint merger was in the public interest with the negotiated concessions attached to the deal.  The thumbs-up comes 4-months after the other federal agency, the Department of Justice, approved the merger on antitrust grounds.  While the FCC’s Republican leadership (Pai, O’Rielly, and Carr) contend that the merger will allow for 3 strong competitors to duke it out in the race to deploy 5G nationwide, the 2 Democrats on the Commission feel that consumers will be worse off with fewer competitors (until Dish deploys).  In an article written for The Atlantic, Commissioner Rosenworsel argued that the market structure of the wireless telecom industry “will devolve into a cozy oligopoly”.  She describes her concerns with what happens in these types of market structures in a statement released by her office after the FCC’s decision.

“We’ve all seen what happens when markets become more concentrated after a merger like this one.  In the airline industry, it brought us baggage fees and smaller seats.  In the pharmaceutical industry, it led to a handful of drug companies raising the prices of lifesaving medications.  There’s no reason to think this time will be different.  Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the T-Mobile-Sprint merger will reduce competition, raise prices, lower quality, and slow innovation.”

The other Democrat on the Commission, Starks, raised similar concerns with a focus on the weak concessions and associated enforcement of those concessions.

“In short, I believe that T-Mobile and Sprint have not proven that their merger will benefit the public interest.  Vague promises do not change what was true when this deal was first proposed and what remains true today – the harms from this merger are not overcome by any condition imposed in the majority’s order.  While I hope for the sake of consumers that I am wrong, I fear that we will one day look back at this decision and recognize it as a moment that forever changed the U.S. wireless industry, and not for the better.”

The last hurdle for T-Mobile-Sprint is the multi-state lawsuit filed by the Attorney Generals (AGs) of 16 states and the District of Columbia.   This is hardly a bi-partisan action as there is only one party to the lawsuit with a Republican AG and that is Texas, a state that employs a lot of AT&T workers.  Of the 8 states which have reached an agreement with the firm so far, only one is led by an AG who is a Democrat.  That state is Mississippi, a state that was part of the original lawsuit, but dropped out just recently when T-Mobile agreed to 5G coverage goals and to hold prices constant for 5 years.  How much more time and resources will it take for T-Mobile-Sprint to “win” everyone over?



Sunday, September 8, 2019

Modern Regulation -- It's Time!


Nearly 30-years ago, Congress passed the 1992 Cable Television Protection and Competition Act (“1992 Cable Act”).  The amendment to the 1934 Communications Act required Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) to obtain permission from broadcasters before carrying their programming and compensate the broadcaster in cash or other forms of compensation for retransmission of the television signals. (Note: There are no fees for these signals if received over-the-air using an antenna.)
If the MVPD and broadcaster cannot agree on renewal terms, a blackout occurs.   A blackout is a result of an impasse in negotiations between the two parties at the end of a contract term.  Through the first 8-months of 2019, there have been more than 200 blackouts.  The most ever.  The market has changed as consumers watch video content in many different ways, way more than in 1992 when the single option for consumers was watching linear programming on a television set.  Regulation needs to change too.
In late July, Representatives Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced a bipartisan bill called the Modern Television Act of 2019.  It has support from MVPDs.  It has opposition from broadcasters who fear that recent sharp price increases may be curtailed.  Key provisions of the bill include
·       Retain the ability of a local television broadcast station to require carriage on cable and satellite providers in their local market.
·       Extend the 'Good Faith' negotiation requirements.  See:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/76.65
·       Require MVPDs carry a broadcast signal while the parties continue negotiations for up to 60 days. Parties would be retroactively paid for their aired content.
·       Repeal retransmission consent and compulsory copyright licenses.
·       Establish a mechanism by which the FCC may require parties to seek “baseball-style” binding arbitration, following an extended impasse or a finding of bad faith.
Let’s see if politicians can get the bill passed by year-end.  Here’s hoping!

Friday, August 30, 2019

Starz: What do you prefer first…the good news or the bad news?


The good news today for Starz, owned by Lions Gate Entertainment, was its announcement of a signed multi-year, multi-million dollar affiliate agreement with AT&T to distribute its premium television content, Starz, over AT&T’s satellite (DirecTV) and telecommunication/internet (U-verse, AT&T TV) services.  In a year where distributors and content owners are engaged in a record-breaking number of contract disputes and blackouts (200 through the end of August), a deal is very good news.  This is especially through for Lions Gate with AT&T, as AT&T represents more than 10% of Lions Gate’s revenue (according to its most recent 10K report, FY ending 3/31/2019).

Today’s bad news is that Comcast, a distributor of Starz’s content but also a competitor with plans to launch its own direct-to-consumer streaming service next year (that will be free to its 50+ million PayTV subscribers), leaked that it will stop carrying Starz at year end when their affiliate agreement expires.  In spite of the hoopla surrounding cord-cutting and the increase in popularity of its own streaming service (over 4 million subs in August), distribution via PayTV is a must for a premium channel like Starz with 26.5 million subscribers.  Loss of Comcast, the second largest MVPD (after AT&T), would be devasting.  

So, game on!  How likely is it that Comcast will drop Starz from its lineup?  That depends on what Lions Gate does next.  It needs to get scooped up quickly by CBS (or AT&T) so that it can gain scale and push-back in contract negotiations over the next four-months with Comcast and with other distributors in the months and years ahead.  A good call would be for Lions Gate to re-initiate interest in Starz with CBS and other potential suitors before time runs out.  (Note: Lions Gate’s passed on a $5 billion offer made by CBS for Starz about a month ago.  Lions Gate paid $4.4 billion for Starz in 2016.)  

Friday, August 23, 2019

Is Scale Everything?


On the August 6th Investor Call, Bob Iger, Disney’s CEO, conveyed that the firm is in discussions with distribution partners such as Apple, Amazon, and Google to supplement its direct-to-consumer streaming offerings “to achieve scale relatively quickly.”  Without a doubt, Disney will ramp up quickly and present a formidable competitive threat to the market leader, Netflix. 

For Netflix, scale is also important.  With high fixed costs for content licensing and creation, Netflix “needs” more subscribers to spread out those costs.  For five of the past eight years (2011-2018), the annual growth in Netflix’s global subscriber count outpaced the increase in content expenditure lowering the per unit (subscriber) cost of content.

Period Ending
Streaming Content Obligations (000)
Global Paid Subscribers (000)
Content Cost/Sub ($)
12/31/2018
 $     19,285,875
      139,259
 $ 138.49
12/31/2017
 $     17,694,642
      110,644
 $ 159.92
12/31/2016
 $     14,479,487
         89,090
 $ 162.53
12/31/2015
 $     10,902,231
         70,839
 $ 153.90
12/31/2014
 $       9,451,112
         54,476
 $ 173.49
12/31/2013
 $       7,252,161
         44,350
 $ 163.52
12/31/2012
 $       5,633,685
         33,267
 $ 169.35
12/31/2011
 $       3,907,198
         21,600
 $ 180.89
SSoSource: Netflix's 10K reports.


But, Netflix has some exposure to “new” competitors like Disney, NBC Universal, WarnerMedia and ViacomCBS that release content across multiple distribution channels like the box office.  The cost savings these firms get from economies of scope, that is creating, acquiring, and marketing content and distributing it over multiple platforms will add to Netflix’s vulnerability to competitive threats and may slow its growth.  Let’s see how Netflix responds.


Thursday, August 22, 2019

Churn baby churn!


Two hours.  That is how long it took to “chat” with a Verizon representative and have some minor changes made to my account.  (In fact, the issue is not completely resolved.  But, I decided to de-couple a second issue and make it tomorrow’s headache.)

It made me wonder how long it would take if I wanted to cancel my account and establish one with another provider (of wireless, internet, and/or pay-tv/streaming).  Verizon and its competitors pride themselves in their low “churn rates”.  I truly believe that more customers don’t switch providers because it is too hard to do so and not because they are happy campers.  In essence, these firms hook us with attractive offers and then make it very difficult to wiggle off that hook. 

What if, however, we are determined to make the switch.  A crucial step is deciding what to switch to.  While wireless and broadband choices are few, the number of plans offered by each is daunting.  Then, if you want to add on entertainment services, you can become overwhelmed quickly and feel great uncertainty (and unhappiness) in making the “right” choice. 

One alternative to Verizon in every market is AT&T (DirecTV).  For that one firm, here is what you see when you go to the website:
Package Name
Channel (minimum)
Mo. Price ($)
Broadcast Channels
Notes
Streaming (internet)- AT&T TV Now
Plus
45
50
Y
HBO incl.; Starz, Cinemax, Showtime = $11/mo
Max
60
70
Y
HBO & Cinemax incl.; Starz Showtime = $11/mo
Entertainment
65
93
Y
Choice
85
110
Y
Xtra
105
124
Y
Ultimate
125
135
Y
Starz included
Pay-TV - Price good for first 12-months, 24-month agreement (early termination fees apply)
Select
155
60
Y
HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz incl. for 1st 3-mo only
Entertainment
160
65
Y
HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz incl. for 1st 3-mo only
Choice
185
70
Y
HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz incl. for 1st 3-mo only
Xtra
235
80
Y
HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz incl. for 1st 3-mo only
Ultimate
250
85
Y
HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz incl. for 1st 3-mo only
Premier
330
135
Y
HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz incl. for 1st 3-mo only
where AT&T available, $10 off per month inf bundle TV package with internet

So, what do “we” do?  We stay with our current provider.  Who wins?  “They” do.