Chinese content provider LeEco announced that it will purchase US television brand Vizio for $2 billion. Until recently, few consumers in the US had even heard of LeEco. In China, it is a pretty big deal. Called the “Netflix of China,” LeEco’s services runs the gambit from Amazon-like shopping, driverless cars, online content, smart phones to TVs. And that’s not even the full list.
LeEco has been trying to break into the US market for some time now and that task has finally been accomplished. But what does that mean for the Vizio brand?
In 2015, Vizio accounted for one out of every five TVs sold in the US. By and large, Vizio TVs are generally well reviewed and, with a 20% market share, there are a lot of US consumers that would agree.
But don’t be surprised if LeEco kills the Vizio brand.
If true to form, LeEco will first change Vizio’s name to be in sync with the rest of its products. It will join the family of LeTV (everything in LeEco’s stable begins with Le) and LeEco will incorporate its acquired brand into what it refers to as its “premium ecosystem user interface.” That will allow consumers to have access to LeEco’s online content with 100,000 TV episodes and 500 films. Compare that to Netflix (4,300 movies) and Hulu (5,300).
Why Vizio will become something else.
But LeEco is not really buying Vizio to get into the TV business in the US. It is buying Vizio to get all of its businesses in the US, particularly its mobile phones and driverless cars. That is further proof that Vizio is doomed.
Chinese companies have traditionally had a difficult time in the US. American’s won’t buy Chinese car brands (though we buy US brands made in China). We shy away from Chinese TV brands – TCL, Hisense, and ZTE – as well as Chinese phone brands like Xiaomi, Huawei and Meizu. Again, we have no problem buying Chinese-made products owned by western companies. But, considering the current economic and political climates, there is something about Chinese companies that leads Americans to reject them.
The once strong rallying cry of “Made in the USA” has switched to “I don’t really care where it’s made as long as it’s not a Chinese company.” What’s odd is that we have little problem when a Chinese company buys a US company such Starwood Hotels, Smithfield Foods and GE’s appliances division. When a Chinese company enters the US market as its own Chinese brand, however, we dig in our heels.
This is the problem that LeEco will face if it really wants to be successful in the US market. It will be much easier for it to succeed if it kept the Vizio brand intact instead of bringing it into the LeEco ecosystem of brands.
If Vizio becomes LeTV, the acquisition will fail.
Will LeEco kill the Vizio brand? You bet. was last modified: July 27th, 2016 by Tom Dougherty
The winners and losers of Peak TV, and what Apple TV can do about it
We are living in the world of Peak TV, a term coined by FX President John Landgraf a few years ago – and he was right in many ways. We are living in an unprecedented era in which the TV options are more varied, more accessible, better overall and just plain more.
Landgraf coined that term because he believes the industry can’t sustain that kind of production. There are only so many eyes watching screens so how can more than 400 shows exist and networks continue to succeed?
For the first time, networks are taking on the challenges of Peak TV by viewing themselves as brands rather than simply deliverers of content. If you’re just a collection of shows without a guiding principle then you won’t succeed. That’s true in television and it’s true in any business.
How do networks figure out their brand? How does it affect which shows a network airs? And how can brand aid in the battle against (or co-exist with) the streaming giants of Netflix, Amazon and Hulu?
With most of us waiting breathlessly for a groundbreaking Apple TV to fix this problem, what are the networks doing now and what should Apple TV look like? What is the future of Peak TV?
The streaming networks changed everything
Let’s start answering those questions by addressing the elephant in the room: Streaming networks. They have significantly changed the landscape because it took the power from the networks and gave it to viewers. No longer would consumers be beholden to what the networks offered and when they could see shows.
The viewer emerged as the one in control.
Consumer control is now the way of the world. The days of being told that you could only watch a limited offering at a certain time are gone. That is the single biggest reason why the streaming networks have succeeded.
Sure, their offerings have often been stellar. But that’s only a small part of it. Netflix, which started as a mail order DVD rental service, didn’t really take off until it jumped into streaming with content that was early seasons of current and past shows from other networks.
The success of Netflix was in giving customers control, thus positioning TV networks as out of touch and even arrogant. The idea that you could only watch what you wanted under somebody else’s rules created images of TV execs sitting in their offices and smoking cigars like Mr. Potter in It’s a Wonderful Life.
Netflix also structured its services as subscription based instead of on a pay-per-view basis. I’ve always thought that one of the reasons Apple has struggled with its online services is because it is not subscription-based. In music, Pandora and Spotify have overtaken the industry because they’re subscription based. When Apple finally released a subscription-based Apple Music, it was too late. (That and other problems.)
Subscriptions add the illusion of control because, subconsciously, the viewer (and listener) believes they are watching (and listening) for free. When you charge on an individual basis – like what Louis CK did recently with his critically acclaimed series Horace & Pete – many commentators were outraged that the comic would charge per episode. How dare he?
The advantages of being a cable network
Before we go any further, let’s put this out front. We’re not going to examine the broadcast TV networks: NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX. Those networks still air shows that get high ratings and bring in tons of money even if their ratio of failure is enormous. In fact, they are the ones hurting the most from Peak TV.
We’re more interested in the networks that have upped their sophistication, matching the tastes of the television watching public and critical landscape. Let’s focus on the cable networks.
Within them there are subsets. There are the prestige networks like FX and AMC (for my money, the two best networks on TV). Then there are the niche players, ranging from a powerhouse like ESPN to The Food Network, Bravo and Nickelodeon. We’re not going to get much into the niche networks but just note: They should not be ignored. HGTV’s Fixer Upper, for example, is a ratings juggernaut.
A third subset is the premium channels like HBO and Showtime, which have a different delivery and payment system than the rest.
What are the advantages to each? For FX and AMC, they have each created a prestige brand based on the success of its shows. Breaking Bad and Mad Men made AMC. The Shield provided liftoff for FX.
Both networks then became known for high-level, gritty programming that led for FX to roll out Justified, The Americans, Fargo and The People vs. OJ Simpson. All are terrific.
AMC had original programming before the double whammy of Mad Men (July 2007) and Breaking Bad (January 2008) gave it the identity it has now.
What’s interesting about each is that they both started as niche programmers. AMC was the place for cheesy moves from the 70s and 80s. AMC, after all, stands for American Movie Classics. (Although its definition of classic was different than mine.) FX was the place for special effects-laden action movies that had completed their theater and premium channel runs. (The name FX was actually supposed to mean FOX +, of a sort. But the movies they aired suggested otherwise.)
Therefore, each had to overcome pre-conceived notions about themselves.
To do that, each rebranded itself with an actual meaning. AMC rebranded under the theme of “Story Matters Here,” which immediately set it apart from both its past history and other networks. (The less said about its current theme, “Something More,” the better.)
FX added the theme of “There is No Box” (meaning, think outside the box). Soon, the programming each offered fulfilled their promises – that they were different and better.
Could they work as a streaming service? Well, each has a streaming app today and they are two networks that most rely on so-called second-day ratings, meaning viewership measured by DVR recordings, cable on demand and streaming from their apps. Sure, it could work as a streaming service.
But part of the advantage of being on a cable (or satellite) system is increased awareness and brand recognition. You have the ability to promote your new shows during commercial breaks of your current ones. While cutting the chord is becoming increasingly popular, only about one in seven Americans have actually done it.
There’s another advantage that needs to be addressed. The Internet, specifically, the online press. The critical TV landscape changed when some sites, like the now defunct Television Without Pity, began recapping shows that aired the night before. Those recaps started out as funny jibes (the recaps of Survivor on TWP were freakin’ hilarious) but have now become serious journalism.
Any website that covers TV in some fashion now has re-cappers – and that includes The New York Times.
While those re-cappers do write about the streaming shows from Netflix, Hulu and Amazon (AV Club is probably the most robust of them all), it’s what has aired to the nation the night before that gets the most ink and attention. There’s a different immediacy when recapping the day after most viewers have watched that program.
In the age of Peak TV (or, as Hollywood Reporter critic Tim Goodman rephrased it, “Too Much TV”), generating that kind of chatter and momentum puts you in the current zeitgeist. Google how many sites are still trying to find ways to recap Game of Thrones weeks after the last episode of Season 6 and you’ll get my point.
The premium channels
The dominant premium channels are HBO and Showtime, with subsets also succeeding (Cinemax, owned by HBO, and Starz). Their advantage is that they are compensated directly from the cable subscriber, a kind of Netflix with a middle man (the cable system) and a regular programming lineup.
Considering what we have examined before, premium channels would seem to have the best of both worlds. You have subscribers (like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon). You have the advantages of being on air (like FX and AMC). And, in the case of HBO, you also have a standalone streaming service available without a cable subscription.
The HBO model is the best in the industry, but you’ve got to wonder. In this era of Peak TV, does the future of HBO really look that bright?
I’d say yes because HBO built its business on the shoulders of the best brand in the business. “It’s Not TV. It’s HBO” was brilliant. It was a stronger version of AMC’s “Stories Matter Here” because it more clearly explained that HBO was different and better.
It also gave the network brand permission to do anything. It could do drama, comedy, documentary (it has the best documentary division on TV), comedy specials and movies. HBO is so good at branding that its theme for HBO GO, “It’s HBO. Anywhere” speaks to the control issue that streaming currently owns.
HBO has a model to follow, but there is another issue to consider.
The relationship between content and brand
As part of our brand relaunch process, we do a brand audit. This exercise looks at everything the brand does, both physically and emotionally, so we can be sure the brand can fulfill the promise. One of the values we examine is brand-product relationships. Do the products themselves follow the brand?
For example, if the brand promise is about simplicity, do the products of the brand make things simpler for its customers? If they don’t, we tell the company that they shouldn’t create that product because the brand will become less believable. Do it only if it fulfills the promise.
How do the current networks stack up?
The interesting one for me here is AMC. “Story Matters Here” has directed the network to develop a menu of tough, interesting dramas. They may be of varied quality, but there’s no doubt that Preacher, Hell on Wheels, The Walking Dead, Better Call Saul, The Night Manager and Turn came from the same network. That’s not say they have the same style or storytelling angle, but that they fulfill the brand promise.
It’s when they networks away from their promise (if they even have one) when they struggle. For example, what does A&E stand for? Who is the A&E viewer? A&E stands for Arts & Entertainment, although the network has long dropped that association.
It has the successful Duck Dynasty (although it’s not as successful as it once was), but its lineup is littered with The Wahlburgers, Escaping Polygamy, Storage Wars and Bates Motel. The problem A&E has is that it doesn’t have a brand promise that can direct its programming. With that lineup, I don’t even know what that promise would be. This is a network in dire need of a rebrand.
Here’s what we know. Streaming networks have given back control to the viewer and probably started Peak TV in the process. Sophistication is in (even in comedy). And having a brand promise that is fulfilled by your programming is the road to success.
Visibility and preference win the day.
In reality, the way to create a successful network is the same process in creating a successful brand. You find the value that has the highest emotional intensity in the market (through quantitative research) and align your brand with that intensity.
The streaming services have done so well because their own models are aligned with a belief that had been increasing in intensity ever since Apple introduced the iPod: I believe things turn out better when I’m in control. That intensity has gotten stronger in the era of Peak TV.
The one thing missing in the TV landscape is a focused brand promise that is clearly stated and differentiating. Even with the positions of HBO and AMC standing tall, no one has clearly stated who the viewer is when they are watching that network.
Let’s make an assumption. Let’s pretend quantitative research demonstrated that the highest emotional intensity among viewers was the difficulty that FX President John Landgraf stated. That Peak TV means there’s too much good TV.
So how does Apple TV (or something like it) capitalize and align itself with that belief? Since we’ve been waiting years for Apple to fulfill the deathbed promise of Steve Jobs that he had “figured out TV,” we’re going to state what Apple TV should be.
It should be a portal that allows you to build your own network. Apple collects all the access to your channels and develops your own, customized network where you add shows and requests in one place. I’m not just talking about shows that appear on your cable system. It would include Netflix, Amazon and Hulu. That is, you would build your network with streaming networks, cable networks, premium channels and broadcast networks combined into one portal.
This may sound like something similar to a DVR, but not if you had the ability to have one search engine, program your networks, categorize your shows and, mostly importantly, see yourself in the brand itself.
You simply tell Apple TV (through Siri, I imagine) what you want to watch now and in the future, and it pulls it up in an interface that you control and program.
Apple CEO Tim Cook said the future of TV is apps. It’s in simplicity because right now (according to our imaginary research) viewers are overwhelmed with choices and have no easy way to navigate it all from all the sources at their disposal.
Our brand promise is that we make Peak TV watching simple because it’s the smart thing to do.
We have a brand promise and have given control to the viewer. It’s a demonstration of the way to win in today’s current TV landscape: To have a clearly defined brand. Without it, you are A&E.
In a way, I think that’s the problem the broadcast networks are having. The definitions of what describes NBC over CBS or any of the others are blurred, and often defined by on-air personalities. CBS probably has the best brand in the market but that’s mostly because it has procedurals that have many variations (such as the CSI and Law & Order series) and appeal to an older demographic.
We leave you with this. The most interesting broadcast network TV show of the last decade was Hannibal, a dreamlike expression of evil that was gorgeous and disturbing – and canceled after two seasons. It should have been a gigantic hit. But it aired on NBC and nothing about NBC’s brand gave it permission to run Hannibal. Viewers, therefore, were sure that Hannibal was a failure without seeing a frame of it.
If Hannibal had been on AMC, FX or HBO, I believe it would have been a smash.
Brand is the key to success for any business. It’s just as important in Landgraf’s Peak TV.
A market study in the era of Peak TV was last modified: July 12th, 2016 by Tom Dougherty
The present-day adage is that there are no original thoughts anymore. That is, if something has been done or created today, there was probably a template for it earlier.
I tend to agree, although not to the extent that many do. Variations on a theme can still be original and, especially in art forms, there is a constant evolution of what has come before.
But it seems that movie audiences are screaming for more originality. Many recent so-called blockbusters have been sequels, ranging from Alice Through the Looking Glass, X-Men: Apocalypse, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and many more.
But that’s always been a fair criticism. Like many businesses, the movie business is a copycat category.
Netflix has taught us to expect more than the generic.
What is interesting to me is that audiences are rejecting these paper-mache films. And I have a theory. You can blame it on Netflix.
Some recent reports have suggested that the original content on Netflix is more popular than many had thought. Netflix, because it is not beholden to advertisers, does not release viewing numbers but its approach seems to be working. Each individual show – or even movie – that Netflix releases on its platform is not geared to appeal to the masses. Netflix’s strategy is to segment its audience so it has something for everyone, but not one thing for everyone.
It knows that few, if any, of its shows will appeal to everyone. The strategy is that if you’re into at least one of its shows because it appeals to your individual taste, you will stay a subscriber or become a new one. In essence, Netflix is producing the middle-cost production that was once the foundation of Hollywood.
Therefore, if Netflix is the dominant viewing platform of this era, then audiences have been taught to seek out things that are less generic. This is why the big TV networks are struggling and the major sequels are losing steam at the cinema.
The trend in the market means that movie studios will have to adjust, as their once-dependable staples no longer fit the appetites of a Netflix-watching audience.
I think that’s what has happened here. Experts all over are trying to predict what viewing will be like in the next decade or so, but it seems the biggest content providing companies (the studios) are the ones who understand the new audience the least.
How Netflix has killed the sequel blockbuster was last modified: July 1st, 2016 by Tom Dougherty
It took me a bit of time to jump on board and call myself a fan. That’s not something I do willingly of music — in fact, I try to find what I dislike about music first and then work from there. Turns out, there isn’t much to dislike that Radiohead does or to be snarky about. These guys are just good.
I first took note of this around the year 2000. My son, whose favorite album ever is Radiohead’s OK Computer, was feverishly anticipating their follow up, Kid A. He’d read any music rag he could put his hands on that would give him a glimpse into what that album was going to sound like. He was a total fanboy.
Around this time, Time magazine put an article out about the band that I shared with my son. There was a bit from the write-up that I never forgot and gave me the utmost respect for Radiohead, which read something like: “They are not afraid to try something completely new and fail at it.”
To a brand guy, words like that screamed at me to “pay attention to this band!”
Radiohead is world class at being a band and using guerrilla marketing.
I could write a book about everything I love about Radiohead’s music, including their latest single, “Burn the Witch.” But that’s not my specialty. My forte is brand.
Turns out, I respect the way Radiohead promotes material just as much as I do the material.
Take when they released the beautiful In Rainbows. It was “pay what you want” for anyone who purchased it digitally (now a trend in the industry). A remarkable leap of faith.
Or its tactic with the release of the newest single, “Burn the Witch.” The band wiped away its internet presence. It sent out mysterious leaflets that read, “Sing the Song of Sixpence that Goes…Burn the Witch… We Know Where You Live” to UK based fans. The images on the leaflet were avant-garde and just curious enough. Then they posted the song on YouTube and Spotify.
As a gadget guy, you’d think I’d be ecstatic to try out a virtual reality gadget but I may have reached the point where technology either scares me or, more disturbing to me, just plain bores me.
The fear of technology is nothing new, but it has never been a fear for me. While countless sci-fi novels, movies and TV shows have preyed on that fear, I’ve never had it. I love the British TV show Black Mirror that’s currently on Netflix. And it’s all about the fear of technology.
But something about virtual reality makes me wonder if it’s as useful of a thing as its supporters claim. Hulu just launched a Gear VR app that lets you watch its offerings in VR. Netflix already has a virtual reality option.
Thinking about it more closely, what’s so scary about it? That it’ll be too realistic? Am I just getting old where anything new no longer excites me?
Right now, virtual reality doesn’t feel like reality.
Both of those questions may be true, but it’s probably more of the latter. Virtual reality has a gimmick feel to it, like 3D movies. Any big blockbuster movie today has a 3D offering but there is some backlash to it. It doesn’t feel real, even though we as humans see the world in three dimensions. It feels overly produced.
Does using virtual reality do the same thing?
It does, a bit. It’s not as intentional as 3D but it’s so vivid that it is only a sensorial experience rather than a meaningful one. You’re caught soaking in the big picture instead of noticing details. It, as this point, still feels made up, not the realistic experience it promises because there’s a loss of texture.
I’m sure the VR manufacturers will get better and the experience will become a larger part of our world than it is now. But not all technical trends turn into something truly useful.
Right now, I’m not overly optimistic.
Is virtual realty a gimmick? was last modified: March 28th, 2016 by Tom Dougherty
What bank leaders can learn from Wells Fargo The Wells Fargo cross-selling scandal will affect more than just it and its customers. The scandal will affect the entire banking industry, which means banking leaders must be beware of simmering anger with banks and know what to do going forward.
Logistics – Parcel delivery market study Logistics particularly as it relates to the consumer delivery business is a two horse race. FedEx and UPS have long duked it out, in effect, having a duopoly over an entire category. One might argue that the US Postal Service ...
Population health is an opportunity Population health is a top concern, but it represents an opportunity
The Affordable Care Act has affected everything for hospitals, including the struggle to be financially successful.
Notably, however, it prompted the switch from a fee-for-service reimbursement model to a pay-for-performance one ...
301 South Elm Street
Greensboro, NC 27401