07-03-2016, 23:17 #1
[EN] Google Fiber: 0.0005% of the pay TV market
Google Fiber had only 53,390 TV customers as of Dec. 31, said a MoffettNathanson report, which added that parent Alphabet’s public relations bounty from the service is wildly out of all proportion to its actual market share gains vs. AT&T and other cable TV players.
"As ever, Google’s presence in the press is wildly out of all proportion to its actual size."
Google Fiber's video subscribers rise 79% in 2015
Google Fiber has drawn rapturous reviews for its gigabit internet service since it launched in Kansas City (both Missouri and Kansas) in 2012. The bad news for Google is that, while the service is now at least partly available in nine U.S. markets, few people in the chosen cities appear to be taking advantage of Google’s Fiber-delivered TV package.
MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett says that Google Fiber’s few TV customers, based on data from the U.S. Copyright Office, raises questions over the media hype the service has garnered.
The addition of fewer than 12,000 subs over a six month span “for a service that has generated this kind of fanfare isn’t terribly impressive,” he said, noting that Google Fiber now represents about 5/100ths of 1% of the U.S. pay TV market.
“As a stand-alone entity, Google Fiber would be approximately 1/7th the size of the smallest distribution company in our firm’s coverage, Cable One. They are 1/15th the size of Mediacom, and just over 1/70th the size of the new U.S. Altice (assuming Altice’s deal for Cablevision successfully closes).”
“One can’t help but feel that all of this has the flavor of a junior science fair,” the report reads.
“The number of subscribers to Google's fiber service remains astonishingly low,” Moffett noted. Though the percentage growth rate for Google Fiber is high, he said the surprise is that the growth rate isn’t higher. "After all, there has been a steady stream of new cities announced, and they’ve now been at it for a long time in at least a handful of markets," he wrote.
“We presume that Google has many more broadband subscribers than video ones. Still, this latest data is a useful barometer of just how slowly all this happens, and just how tiny Google Fiber remains in the grand scheme of things," he said.
According to Moffett’s analysis, Google Fiber ended Q4 2015 with 53,390 video subs, up from 28,867 a year earlier. Among individual service areas, it ended the year with about 12,189 video subs in Kansas City, Kan., on a base of 53,925 homes in the city (22% penetration up from 13% last year), a 17% penetration in Kansas City, Mo. (37,338 subs on a base of 221,860 homes in the city); Google Fiber, he found, also has 941 video subs in Austin, Texas.
And he is puzzled at Google Fiber’s apparent lack of progress and low penetration (8%) in Provo (2,718 subs on 33.212 homes) where Google bought the municipal network three years ago for $1.
“Over the past six months, they have added exactly 65 subscribers in Provo. Yes, you read that correctly. There are no decimal places missing," Moffett wrote, while later pointing out that Google Fiber represents a large piece of Alphabet’s “other bets.”
Those other bets, which include Google Fiber and moonshot project like self-driving cars, lost $3.6 billion in 2015, alongside revenues of $450 million.
Alphabet hasn’t given any subscriber figures for Google Fiber, nor any financials.
Ruth Porat, CFO for Google and Alphabet, has repeatedly stressed to Wall Street that Fiber will be a chief recipient of the company’s ample capital spending. Earlier this week, at a Morgan Stanley conference, she said the company is “really pleased with the progress” on Fiber.
The MoffettNathanson report, though, reveals that the Street is starting to get antsy with the unit’s feeble growth.
“Google has made a number of splashy announcements. Taken together, they have a rather provisional feel, as if the company is still experimenting,” Moffett wrote. “Each market is different, and seemingly intentionally so. The goal doesn’t seem to be how much ground they can cover. It seems to be how many different business models they can showcase.”
“As ever,” the report concludes, “Google’s presence in the press and inside the Beltway (and in investors’ minds) is wildly out of all proportion to its actual size.”
Última edição por 5ms; 07-03-2016 às 23:30.
07-03-2016, 23:41 #2
08-03-2016, 07:37 #3
Cord-Cutting: Never Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Good Story
March 1, 2016
The narrative about Big Media’s secular decline has taken on a life of its own, so forgive us for interjecting some contrary data points that make the story far less interesting.
On a year-over-year basis, at least from the perspective of the media companies, the decline in Pay TV subscriptions actually slowed in Q4.
Wait, is that not what you were expecting?
The data simply doesn’t fit the story of accelerating secular declines that have so dominated discourse in the general press and on media earnings conference calls of late.
08-03-2016, 07:40 #4
Has Cord Cutting Been Overhyped?
February 25, 2016
This is Wall Street’s biggest concern about Big Media: If the pace of cord cutting and other strategies to pay less for TV is accelerating, then prospects for programmers, networks and distributors become dreary.
But while analysts differ about the trends, some who follow pay TV distributors say it’s time to relax, based on Q4 subscription numbers they can tally following morning’s report from Cablevision — the last major distributor to weigh in.
“The data simply doesn’t fit the story of accelerating secular decline that has so dominated discourse in the general press and on media earnings conference calls of late,” MoffettNathanson Research’s Craig Moffett says.
He estimates that traditional cable, satellite, and telco TV providers — including privately held ones that don’t report their numbers — lost about 49,000 subs in the three-month period at the end of 2015.
Those who believe cord cutting is a problem can note that, by Moffett’s count, this would be the first decline in the year-end period, which is usually strong for subscriptions. It also would be the first time that the industry declined for four consecutive quarters.
But Moffett says it’s fair to include an estimated 129,000 subs for Dish Network’s skinny bundle Sling TV. That brings the total to an increase of 80,000.
In any event, he says, the quarter showed “a small but material improvement to the rate of decline a quarter ago,” when the industry lost 426,000 without Sling, and 271,000 with it.
Some of pay TV’s decline is due to the slowdown in millennials’ ability to leave their parents’ homes to create their own households — and, for many of them, starting their own subscriptions. But “if and when a true recovery in new household formation comes, Pay TV and Media investors could be in for a rather sharp positive surprise,” Moffett says.
Evercore ISI’s Vijay Jayant’s subscriber estimates are a little different, but he says they still show that “all major cable operators showed improvement in video trends” in Q4.
He figures cable, satellite and telco video providers collectively lost 123,000 subscribers in Q4, for a total of 98.8 million.
While analysts following the pay TV distributors are upbeat, those who track content providers say they’re still concerned about recent trends.
Within the subscription numbers, there’s been a shift from small operators to large ones including Comcast and AT&T’s DirecTV. “We believe that these companies on average pay materially lower per-subscriber fees than smaller share losers for the same networks,” Guggenheim Securities’ Michael Morris says. “We expect this trend to continue into 2016.”
And investors have to guess about how many customers networks actually have: Companies typically just report Nielsen estimates, not the number of households for which they’re paid.
“In that vacuum, a narrative — typically bearish — takes hold,” MoffettNathanson Research’s Michael Nathanson says.
Última edição por 5ms; 08-03-2016 às 07:45.
08-03-2016, 07:59 #5
Is Netflix Killing TV?
Netflix adoption leads to 1,5% decline in TV viewing time among U.S. audiences, finds report
March 3, 2016
In 2015, Netflix accounted for about half of the overall 3% decline in TV viewing time among U.S. audiences, according to a new study by Michael Nathanson of MoffettNathanson. The analyst calculated that based on an estimate that Netflix’s domestic subs streamed 29 billion hours of video last year (Netflix said members worldwide watched 42.5 billion hours in 2015). That would represent 6% of total American live-plus-7 TV viewing reported by Nielsen (up from 4.4% in 2014).
Moreover, Nathanson predicts Netflix’s total streaming hours as a percentage of TV viewing will continue to rise to about 14% by 2020. “Currently, Netflix is a source of industry pain, but not necessarily a cause of industry death,” he wrote in the note.
Executives at media conglomerates are now viewing Netflix as a growing threat. Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes, who once compared Netflix to the “Albanian army,” last fall said that the company may pull back on licensing TV content to SVOD services.
But not all TV networks are suffering from the rise of Netflix and other streaming-video services, Nathanson noted. Total viewing of networks from Time Warner, Scripps Networks Interactive, AMC Networks and Discovery Communications rose in 2015. A+E Networks’ viewing hours declined 15%, Viacom fell 13%, and NBCUniversal and Disney each dropped 5% overall.
In comparing TV viewing of Netflix vs. non-Netflix households, broadcast networks took the biggest hit in 2015. CBS viewing among Netflix subs was 42% lower than non-subs, with Fox at -35%, ABC at -32% and NBC at -27%, according to Nathanson’s analysis.
Meanwhile, viewing time of Disney’s networks last year was 11% higher in Netflix homes versus non-Netflix homes. Viacom saw a “modest” 5% year-over-year drop in Netflix homes; in that case, “it is unclear if this is as a result of viewership which has already been negatively impacted by SVOD services in prior years, or if the company’s younger-skewing viewers are switching back and forth more easily to watch both linear television and SVOD services,” Nathanson wrote.
Based on viewing time, Netflix in 2015 was bigger than smaller cable programmers like A+E and AMC, but not as large as the seven biggest conglomerates (NBCUniversal, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, 21st Century Fox, Discovery and CBS).
One caveat on the analysis: Nielsen’s Live+7 excludes online and mobile viewing on TV networks’ sites and apps. But Nielsen hours-viewed numbers adjust for co-viewing, whereas Netflix’s reported data is per household. According to Nathanson, that means Netflix per-person viewing is underrepresented relative to Nielsen Live+7; thus, the analyst assumes the two factors largely cancel each other out.
Other studies have compared Netflix’s viewing to traditional TV. The service was on track to attract a larger 24-hour audience than each of the major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC) some time in 2016, per an analysis last summer by FBR Capital Markets.
As of the end of 2015, Netflix reported 74.76 million streaming customers worldwide, including 44.74 million in the U.S.
One big challenge for Netflix now will be increasing its reach among older consumers, according to Nathanson, an age group that watches more traditional TV than younger demos. SVOD penetration among those 35-44 is 60%, then tapers off to 54% for the 45-54 cohort, 37% for 55-64 and 23% for those 65-plus.
09-03-2016, 07:45 #6
Chromecast Led OTT Device Market in 2015Jeff Baumgartner
Led by the Chromecast, products from Google, Amazon, Apple and Roku accounted for more than 8 of every 10 digital media streamer shipped globally last year, according to a new report from Strategy Analytics.
Per the study – Global Connected TV Device Vendor Market Share: Q4 2015 -- the $35 Google Chromecast took down 35% of the 42 million digital media streamer shipped last year, followed by Apple TV, Roku and Amazon Fire TV products.
The Chromecast’s $35 price and portability has made it an impulse purchase for many and household ownership of multiple Chromecasts is not uncommon,” the firm said. “However, the mobile device is not necessarily the center of the universe for everyone and devices such as Apple TV, Roku and the Amazon Fire TV continue to prove popular with those looking for a more traditional remote-based and UI driven TV experience."
Based on cumulative shipments, the Apple TV, with 37 million units shipped since 2007, still leads the pack, though the Chromecast, at 27 million units shipped and coming off the introduction of a new model, is making up ground, followed by Roku players and the Roku Streaming Stick (20 million), and the Amazon Fire TV (less than 10 million).
When factoring in other types of connected TV devices, such as smart TVs, Blu-ray players and gaming consoles, global shipments in the category totaled 220 million units in 2015, thanks to record shipments of 84 million in Q4, Strategy Analytics said.
Smart TVs accounted for 54% of all connected TV devices shipped in 2015, hitting 120 million units. Samsung, LG and Sony enjoyed a combined 50% share in that segment, despite strength from TCL and Hisense, makers of a new line of integrated Roku TV products.
"Ownership of connected TV devices is not restricted to one device over another,” Chirag Upadhyay, senior research analyst, Connected Home Devices service, at Strategy Analytics, said in a statement. “Our research shows that US broadband homes own an average of 2.3 such devices giving them multiple means by which to stream video and audio content to the TV. While some consumers will have a favoured method, we find that most households are switching between different devices depending on the user and type of content being consumed."
09-03-2016, 07:57 #7
Streaming VOD: Analyst says impact on traditional TV is modest
Netflix now in 45% of households, Amazon Prime in 21% and Hulu in 10%.
Streaming video-on-demand services are now in 50% of U.S. TV homes, according to a new analysis of Nielsen data by Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research, up from 43% a year ago.
While some analysts believe services like Netflix and Hulu are killing traditional TV, Wieser says the most-recent increase in SVOD penetration is having only a modestly downward affect on traditional TV viewing.
Looking at the data from Oct. 1, 2015 through Feb. 21 2016, Wieser says that not every network is down because of the availability of SVOD services. Viewing of CBS’ broadcast network and Time Warner’s ad supported cable networks are up. And they’re up more in SVOD homes than in those without SVOD services.
TV ratings have been dropping because the spread of digital viewing choices. In addition to streaming over-the-top services, viewers have DVRs to delay viewing, online sources such as YouTube and even video-on-demand from cable operators.
As ratings decline, some advertisers have been looking to follow the audience to digital video sources. At the same time, the increase in OTT choices appears to be fueling concerns about cord cutting, which would cut into TV networks affiliate fees.
“Ultimately we do not believe the growth of SVOD services meaningfully impacts advertisers’ spending at the medium level, but we do see ongoing risks to affiliate fees which can be offset by license fees from the SVOD providers,” Wieser says in a research note.
Wieser says that the number of VOD homes is up 17%, with Netflix now in 45% of households, Amazon Prime in 21% and Hulu in 10%, up from 38%, 15% and 7% respectively.
Live plus seven ratings are up 1.6% in homes accessing SVOD services, while viewing is stable in homes without them. Viewing is up only if consumption on Internet-connected devices is included. Viewing on Internet-connected devices accounted for 7% of all viewing.
And Wieser notes that different network groups ratings were affected differently in SVOD homes versus non-SVOD homes. Looking at total day 18 to 49 ratings, DBS was up 13.2% in SVOD homes and up 8.5% in non-SVOD homes. Time Warner was up 2.8% in SVOD homes and down 0.4% in non-SVOD homes. Viacom was down 3.7% in SVOD home and up 7.1% in non-SVOD homes.
09-03-2016, 14:14 #8
How much are you prepared to pay for subsidized fiber?
The policy implications of the North Carolina study are that subsidizing high-speed fiber services likely would not achieve universal broadband adoption, would connect many households that already have Internet access and that might not switch to the new service, and would be prohibitively costly even assuming very generous estimates of consumer surplus.
March 9, 2016
In many past blogs for TechPolicyDaily.com, I have drawn attention to the eye-wateringly large costs of subsidized fiber broadband networks and questioned the relative benefits they offer compared to the alternatives. I have also questioned the merits of government entities (municipal, state, or federal) owning and operating subsidized fiber infrastructure — not just because they crowd out other investments and distort labor markets, but because they face fewer incentives to discipline costs, meet timelines, and operate efficiently than their private sector counterparts do.
It seems that in the quest to boast access to the fastest networks on the planet, politicians and policymakers have forgotten the long-established link between government subsidies and ownership, and the propensity for investment in over-engineered, gold-plated infrastructure that provides services most consumers neither want nor need.
Gold-plated subsidized fiber
Australia’s ill-fated, government-funded National Broadband Network (NBN) provides a classic example. Australia’s government proposed to connect 95 percent of Australian residences to 100 Mbps fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) by 2020. The project was commissioned under a haze of political hubris as a “nation-building exercise” that would supposedly transform the Australian economy. But as it turns out, the exercise has arguably had a far greater impact on Australia’s politics than on its economics.
Some six years after the project was first proposed, a federal election was in part determined by political capital made out of NBN budget blowouts, delays, and cost overruns. Incoming government officials finally commissioned a peer-reviewed and independent cost-benefit analysis of the network, which revealed a net loss of over $2000 per household (net present value) for the highly subsidized NBN. This loss is in comparison leaving it to the unsubsidized private sector to fund the rollout of faster networks when and where demand justified it. Even the more modest Multi-Technology Model, which makes greater use of existing copper and cable networks and which replaced the NBN model in 2014, is still projected to have a net cost of over $600 per household
A key component of the cost-benefit analysis was the assumption that consumers’ willingness to pay for faster connections was very low. This assumption was hotly contested by NBN advocates, who argued that if consumers could try out faster connections, they would be prepared to pay much more than the CBA analysts had assumed. The analysts, however, based their demand estimates on high-quality empirical evidence from markets where consumers were able to choose freely among unsubsidised connections at a variety of speeds.
Unfortunately for the NBN and other subsidized fiber advocates — who probably stand to benefit most from gold-plating and who would prefer that others share some of their costs — the growing body of empirical evidence about consumer demand for speed confirms that it is very elastic. This includes a recent study by Andre Boik of the University of California, Davis.
Satellite: the silver lining in the rural infrastructure cloud?
This study used a novel set of household-level DSL, cable, satellite, and fiber subscription data from North Carolina to identify the potential benefits of state-subsidized, high-speed broadband. The findings are significant in large part for their inclusion of data regarding satellite services.
Satellite broadband services are — for a price — already available in nearly all rural areas, and they provide access to higher-quality broadband services than are possible using copper-based ADSL. Including them in the cost-benefit evaluation for a new fiber service appears logical, but so far this technology has not featured substantially in the rural broadband debate.
If rural consumers value speed, then they will most likely already be purchasing faster satellite connections; most people living in these regions aren’t constrained to just DSL or dial-up. Therefore, the increase in surplus for a consumer switching from a relatively fast satellite connection (10Mbps or greater) to a 100Mbps fiber connection will be less than that of a consumer switching from a slow satellite (less than 1Mbps) or copper connection. Additionally, subsidizing satellite connections may be more cost-effective than subsidizing fiber, if increasing rural broadband uptake is the desired objective. An accurate cost-benefit analysis would take each of these considerations into account, as Boik’s study did.
By including existing satellite purchases in the empirical analysis, Boik finds that many consumers who would switch to a subsidized, fast, fixed-line network in North Carolina already purchase speeds above the standard ones available on copper, cable, or slower satellite infrastructure. However, these consumers don’t value higher speed connections very highly — fewer than 13 percent of households in areas served by a single wired network operator plus satellite currently purchase them. There is significant elasticity of substitution between high-speed fiber and lower-speed satellite and DSL options.
The policy implications of the North Carolina study are that subsidizing high-speed fiber services likely would not achieve universal broadband adoption, would connect many households that already have Internet access and that might not switch to the new service, and would be prohibitively costly even assuming very generous estimates of consumer surplus. While there may be a case for such a network in some currently underserved areas, to justify connecting the 5 percent of least densely populated areas of the state would require each adopting household to value high-speed wired broadband access at more than $1519 per month.
The brazen face of politics
The US study thus confirms earlier Australian assumptions about the costs and (absence of) benefits from fast fiber in the presence of substitutes that appear to satisfy most consumers. But this assumes that the most important benefits of these networks are economic. As Australia has already illustrated, there is no substitute for the cachet — or otherwise — of promoting a fiber broadband policy in the market for political control.
Última edição por 5ms; 09-03-2016 às 14:16.
09-03-2016, 15:57 #9
Urban Millennials Not Dropping Cable
Group Streaming More TV but Not Cutting the Cable Cord in Big Numbers
Young multicultural viewers are still subscribing to and watching traditional television as both broadcast and cable networks have offered shows like Black-ish, Empire and Fresh Off the Boat that reflect their images and experiences.
But that hasn’t stopped them from increasing their consumption of OTT streaming services like Netflix, Amazon and Hulu, according to a report presented Wednesday (March 9) during the 16th annual Horowitz Associates Cultural Insights Forum.
Urban/multicultural TV content viewers in general watch 51% of their weekly TV viewing live, while streaming represents 30% of their TV viewing, according to Horowitz’s Multicultural Matters audience report. Black viewers (58%) are the biggest consumers of live programming, ahead of Spanish-language dominant Hispanic (53%), Asian (48%) and white viewers (47%).
But for urban millennials the reverse is true, with 51% of 18-34 year olds’ weekly viewing coming from streaming services like Hulu and Netflix.
Further, Netlfix serves as the first “go to” service for 39% of millennials compared with just 22% of millennials who say live TV is their first choice.
“The OTT experience is like multichannel viewing on steroids – more content than you could possibly want on a wider variety of platforms on a bunch of different devices on a number of screens,” said Adriana Waterston, senior vice president of Insights and strategy for Horowitz Research.
Coinciding with the increase in streaming viewership is a 10% increase in OTT subscriptions among urban viewers, according to the report.
Still, 75% of urban/multicultural millennials subscribe to both pay TV and OTT/SVOD services. Further, only 17% of those viewers are very likely to cancel their pay TV subscriptions over the next six months, which industry observers say gives traditional television providers an opportunity to retain multicultural viewers by offering content that appeals to them when they want to see it.
Providing easy access and more robust TV Everywhere offerings from traditional cable networks while finding a home for new and unique new multicultural-themed content -- as well as more precise measurement of multiplatform use by urban viewers -- will go along way in securing loyal subscribers as they get older.
“The traditional business model has been disrupted … you can’t ignore that fact,” said Waterston. “But that doesn’t mean that viewers are watching less television, but rather they’re watching in different and possibly not adequately measured ways.”
09-03-2016, 18:02 #10
The US study thus confirms earlier Australian assumptions about the costs and (absence of) benefits from fast fiber in the presence of substitutes that appear to satisfy most consumers.
But this assumes that the most important benefits of these networks are economic. As Australia has already illustrated, there is no substitute for the cachet — or otherwise — of promoting a fiber broadband policy in the market for political control.