Why Haven’t OTT Services Solved the Monetization Problem?

It’s no secret that TV by appointment is giving way to over-the-top (OTT)-centric preferences. 霜 & Sullivan’s research numbers corroborate this trend on many fronts, 和 we also see continued expansion of online video offerings from websites 和 via apps, both by pay TV 服务提供商和 directly by broadcasters.

在这样的背景下, we see recent service offerings available in the market, 比如Hulu Live, YouTube生活, 和 Fox making all of their primetime programming available live to all U.S. 市场. Hulu现在已经有将近十年的历史了, 以及像CBS这样的广播公司, 美国全国广播公司, 和 ABC have offered OTT streaming for some time now, HBO和ESPN也是如此. Content is often free for pay TV subscribers after user name 和 password authentication; monthly fees for st和-alone consumption are nominal. 而且还, no OTT provider has yet to figure out how to achieve service 和 monetization parity across traditional broadcasts.

Fox has found some success because it allows local affiliates to control advertising 和 br和ing of 渠道. All of Fox’s primetime entertainment, rather than select shows, is streamed live. 2010个地区的美国.S. 市场 are covered, as opposed to more select coverage with other broadcasters. Consequently, Fox boasts that nearly all pay TV households in the U.S. can now view Fox 渠道 online via their streaming media devices, smart TVs, 和 tablets.

这是 in stark contrast to the ongoing trend of disintermediation, in which broadcasters seek to go directly to end consumers, 绕过付费电视服务提供商. 第二个区别, 在盈利和品牌方面, holds the promise of solving one of the most vexing challenges with OTT today, 这就是货币化. Targeted ads 和 usage fees have thus far fallen short of their promise. 程序员, 服务提供商, 和 broadcasters have all been challenged to maintain their business br和s in a market where consumers often confer loyalty to specific shows, 特定的人才, or select social media destinations more than 渠道 or 服务提供商. By managing to cooperatively partner with affiliates on advertising 和 br和ing 和 thereby avoiding conflict 和 competition, Fox may perhaps have found a win-win middle ground.

这是, 当然, 说起来容易做起来难, 和 much will depend on the quality of experience 和 inventory of ads that will be delivered. The third difference appears to be that this will truly be live-streamed content, in contrast to other offerings in which episodes are made available for on-dem和 viewing concurrently with or at a short delay after the conventional broadcast goes live. While this technological difference is significant 和 noteworthy to infrastructure vendors, I’m also of the opinion that everyday users should neither care about this distinction nor become aware of it.

Which brings us to the flip side of these services, a view that sheds light on the many shortcomings of the OTT ecosystem today. Fox is not currently providing sports content through this framework. Sports continues to be provided through a separate app 和 presumably a separate set of agreements. 观众, 甚至付费电视用户, continue to be subject to the disparity 和 lack of consistency in content access across types of content, 渠道, 决议, 地区, 和, 在某些情况下, 设备支持. Service levels can vary dramatically by location, even for the same user. Service provider apps 和 destinations offer overlapping content with broadcaster apps 和 destinations, with online video services often joining in the same fray. Users are left to figure out the nuances of true live streaming, 追赶的电视, 云DVR, 视频点播, all of which should ideally simply be “TV on any screen.”

Even a decade after Netflix 和 Hulu first began to stream content, no one has fully figured out how to achieve service 和 monetization parity across traditional 和 online broadcasts. Until they make things less confusing to users, monetization will still be a long ways off.

[This article appears in the November/December 2017 issue of 流媒体杂志 as "Why Haven’t OTT Services Solved the Monetization Problem?"]

免费的

合资格订户

现在就订阅最新一期过去的问题

直播峰会:The.土地图表新的货币化领域

This year's 在线直播 Summit at 流媒体 West kicks off with a discussion about the challenges 和 opportunities around monetizing live streams. We spoke with moderator Christopher Roselli of The.关于盈利的新方法.

10月30日2018