Blog

Left to our own devices

We’re able to watch television on more devices than ever before, whether it be live TV or catch-up, it’s now possible to watch when we want, and where we want.  Online player apps now ensure there is no excuse to miss out on our favourite programmes.

But what devices, other than the old faithful TV set, do we prefer when it comes to watching premium television? Well, now we know.

With weeks to go before BARB’s new integrated measurement system is due to launch, BARB has updated their website to allow users to interrogate further just what devices are most popular for which player and which broadcaster. It’s the first time there is an audited viewpoint based on census data of online viewing by different devices in the UK, and it makes for interesting reading.

AllPlayersSource: BARB TV Player Report – All Audited TV Players

For starters, the device and screen do indeed matter. Much has been made of the role of mobile in video, and how it’s a potential game changer for viewing. Ultimately, this data, certainly for premium, high quality, immersive content, suggests otherwise.  Across the reporting period (May ’17 – Jan ’18), mobile made up less than 20% of all premium video, suggesting, given the chance, people will opt for a larger screen if possible.  Tablets made up the largest proportion of viewing at 46% of all viewing, followed by PCs/Laptops at 35%.

But ultimately, one size doesn’t fit all, and the popularity and use by device does change significantly by player and broadcaster.

iplayerSource: BARB TV Player Report – BBC iPlayer
itvhubSource: BARB TV Player Report – ITV Hub

Lets take the two main PSB Players, the BBC iPlayer and ITV Hub. The profile of respective device usage suggests some subtle differences, not only in the potential audiences, but perhaps also to the types of most popular programming.  The iPlayer profile, follows closely that of all players overall (not unsurprising considering it’s size and contribution to the base), with tablets accounting for 44% of viewing, PCs/Laptops 37% and mobile 18%. But for ITV Hub, this changes. Tablets and PCs are similarly popular (40%, 38% respectively) and indeed across late spring and early summer 2017, PCs were the most popular. For ITV Hub, it’s the shift to mobile that is most interesting with this device accounting for 22% of all viewing.

All4Source: BARB TV Player Report – All4

And what of other players, well, the profiles change once more. For All4, PCs/Laptops are the most popular (43%), above that of Tablets (37%), with mobile, like ITV Hub, above average at 20%.  This might suggest a significant demographic or content skew within All4 viewing driving PC viewing.  This perhaps rings true with other data provided from BARB. In a recent report based on data from their viewing panel, it suggested a young adult/student skew for this player. This is a demographic that is more likely to own and use a laptop for studies etc.

SkyGoSource: BARB TV Player Report – Sky Go

And what of Sky Go, the UK’s largest channel aggregator of broadcast television, well, again, the profile shift on the norm is significant, and it’s all about tablets. Across the period, 60% of all viewing to the Sky Go app, was via a tablet, with PCs only marginally above that of mobile with 22% and 18% of viewing respectively. From the same data we can see that SkyGo viewing is dominated by Live Streaming and of which we know that Premier League Football dominates the top programmes, so again, we begin to see how certain type of programming and audience segments have different device choices from the norm.

Of course, why does all this matter? Well, the environment in which we watch and how immersive that screen is surely has an impact on the effectiveness of commercials delivered to those screens. Simply put, are all screens equal? Maybe, maybe not, and this data, and the integrated data soon to be launched, will help in evaluating these questions.

 

Premier Pricing

In just under two weeks (8th February), the initial bids of the next round of Premier League football rights will be tabled. It’s always a fascinating time, of rumour, intrigue and speculation.  Just how high will the price go for the mother of all giffen goods?

As with the previous deals, there has been talk of significant increases in bid prices, both fueled by rumour of new entrants into the marketplace, but also due to changes to the package structure by the Premier League.

For the first time, over half of all Premier League games will be televised, which basically means, if you’re a season ticket holder to a major club, don’t expect to be watching your team at 3pm on a Saturday much longer. New packages and time slots mean late night Saturday games, together with full rounds of fixtures offered across three midweek periods, and a full fixture lineup over one bank holiday period.  For both the viewer and the broadcaster, there are significant changes afoot. 

These new slots have been seen as a way of enticing new entrants, such as Amazon, Facebook etc, into the domestic market. But given the times that these games are likely to be shown, it is potentially more likely that these packages will have international rights as the main part of their strategy, forcing games to be shown in the evening, UK time, to offer better viewing times stateside and therefore attracting higher international prices in the largest consumer market of them all.

But, going back to domestic rights, it really is anyone’s guess as to what the end value will be. The Business Insider recently suggested that they expect total rights to increase by a whopping 40% on the current £5bn paid by Sky and BT. Their justification is the apparent entry into the market by Amazon, something which was also suggested by Ampere Analysis. Interestingly, Ampere quote a direct Amazon representative suggesting they are interested in bidding. This is the first time there has actually been a confirmation from a third party that they were interested in bidding, which is significant.

Thinking about both of these claims. Business Insider is suggesting a 40% increase in rights, so, in effect an increase of £2bn for what is just an extra 32 televised games, or £21m a match. Obviously in reality the price differential is actually applied to all matches, so increasing the value of each and every match by a more reasonable £2m. But ultimately, what is the market for making this money back? The advertising model is just not going to cut it, so any new entrant without a subscription model is going to have to accept a loss leader on the £12m a match fee, with the gain being the opportunity to be a ‘disruptor’ in the UK pay-tv market. 

Which essentially leaves just Amazon. But again, let’s do the maths on this and go back to the Business Insider piece, which suggests that its model is to attract Premier League rights, force cord cutting and increase their subs to video, which is currently £79 a year. Recent BARB analysis clearly shows that existing Sky, Virgin and BT subscribers already over index significantly with Amazon subscribers, so, there is a good chance that even if cord cutting did occur (a big if I might add), then a significant chunk of these households would not be turning to Amazon Video, simply as they already have it. And further still, if Amazon were to want to get any sort of return on the investment, then the £79 a month fee would have to be significantly adjusted. Therefore, it is likely that if Amazon do come in, then it will be at the lower end of the scale, most likely for the new packages and at a value (per game) far below those currently being offered for current packages.

But what about the current incumbents, the ones that have, up to this point, actually got their wallets out? Will they succumb to the same worries as previously, blink first and up their bids? The better question might be, can they?

Taking Sky, after a difficult 2016, subs have held steady across 2017 with both subscribing households and sports subscribers relatively unchanged, as measured by BARB. Access to all the sports channels on Sky is £27.50 a month, although average household monthly rates are likely to be higher on the basis of HD upgrades etc. Generously, if we assume a household monthly cost of £32.50, and taking BARB data as a gauge, then there are 4.6m subscribing ‘sports’ households (including Virgin Media), meaning a ‘sports’ revenue of £1.8bn a year for residential channel subscription. Yearly costs of the current Premier League rights for Sky come out at £1.4bn (£4.176bn/3). Clearly there are other revenue streams, from commercial subs, Now TV (which incidentally BARB has identified strong growth in) and of course the pay-tv Youview platforms, but the point being that even the current deal squeezes Sky’s margins. If they were to increase their bid significantly, then this would have to be passed on to the customer ultimately, which in the current market, might just be a tipping point.

And what about BT? Well, the Champions League bidding has shown that they do still have appetite to be competitive, but likewise, they have also publicly stated that the rate of inflation in rights need to stop. Additionally, since that time, BT and Sky have come to agreements on content sharing of channels and there is general talk of a truce ahead of the auction. 

So, what might this all mean for overall rights prices? Well, there are new packages available, which, on any merit, will drive new revenue to the Premier League. But that said, the nature of many of the new packages are not necessarily conducive to the viewer. The mid-week and Bank Holiday packages in which all matches will be across a few days mean it is unlikely that a viewer will even be able to watch all the matches available to televise, as many of them will have to kick-off at the same time, a point made clearly by media commentator Adam Bowie last month.  Even with some potential new entrants (and to date, other than Ampere’s contact, remember that there has been no confirmed public interest), I can’t see, and I certainly wouldn’t recommend either Sky or BT upping their current bids by any significant margin. 

And lastly, a point that hasn’t really been discussed at all, do viewers actually want this? Nearly all top category games are already televised, so what do the viewers get in their extra 32 games? A Burnley away trip to Huddersfield perhaps? Ratings per game do change significantly by club, so the idea that a 20% increase in televised games will warrant a 20% increase in viewing (and therefore cost at least 20% more) is folly .  As Mitchell & Webb parodied, perhaps there is already too much football on TV?

 

 

 

 

Democratisation of Data

It’s been 100 years since the Representation of the People Act was passed into UK law allowing women (or rather some women) to vote in UK elections. It was a landmark act which today may seem rather perplexing that it was even necessary, but all the same, it was part of a continued progress towards full democracy; government elected by the people, run for the people.

But, for democracy to work in practice requires accountability and transparency. If we don’t know what our representatives are doing, or we don’t have a free press to bring transparency to their actions, how can we, as voters, make informed and judged decisions?

Why, you may think, am I talking about universal suffrage in relation to media, and indeed data? Well, the same applies ultimately. The media world in which we operate now offers so many new ways in which to measure and track our audiences, to understand what content people like, where, and when. For planners, we are able to to use new 3rd party data sources to efficiently target and evaluate campaigns against those we want to actually target. We should be in a new golden age. But what happens if the data in which we plan, in which we measure, in which we trade, is not transparent, is not accountable? How do we know we are seeing and interpreting what we think we are seeing and interpreting?

Well, back to the world for democratic accountability, the parliamentarian Tony Benn famously posed five key questions to anyone in positions of power or responsibility.

  1. What power have you got?
  2. Where did you get it from?
  3. In whose interests do you use it?
  4. To whom are you accountable?
  5. How do we get rid of you?

They were a litmus test if you like on how well your elected representative served you as a voter and in who’s interests they did this.

So, shouldn’t we in the same vein apply that similar criteria to our data, especially if that data on which we rely is 3rd party, owned and delivered by another organisation, perhaps with other interests to our own?

The answer is of course a categoric yes! New audience data, are a wonderful thing, but unless we ask of it the right questions, we may not always be sure of the purpose or what it actually represents.

  1. What data do you have?
  2. How was this data collected?
  3. In who’s interest was this data collected?
  4. How is this data accountable, validated or verified?
  5. What alternative data is available?

So, whether you’re buying a campaign or wanting to understand your audience better, perhaps start by asking these simple five questions of the data you have or receive. If you don’t like the answers you get, or indeed don’t even know the answers, then perhaps it’s time to take a step back and re-evaluate the virtue and value of the data you are receiving and whether it really serves the purpose you would like it to.

If, of course, you’d like any help with any of these questions or with audience data in general, then don’t hesitate to get in touch.