YouTube TV isn’t special, but it’s one of a coming wave
Tom Dougherty, CEO – Stealing Share
1 March 2017
Still waiting for the one TV streaming service to take control
Google announced yesterday that it’s joining the horde of companies going after traditional cable companies. No, it’s not with Chromecast. It’s a soon-to-be released service, YouTube TV.
Last week, I wrote that the current streaming market is confusing. Yes, YouTube TV adds to that confusing mix. But it doesn’t really add anything new.
“But these content producers see the writing on the wall. A new model for broadcast TV has arrived.”
In fact, YouTube TV is missing some key pieces. You can’t add on HBO, for one.
The price of YouTube TV matches other services with a $35 per month fee. Who knows which service is better. Some sport more channels. But the sheer number of channels does not demonstrate which one is actually better.
That being said, debating which service is better is beside the point.
One thing is clear. The sheer number of services entering this category proves one thing. There is consumer demand. And, predictably, companies are responding.
These streaming companies are eliminating long-term contracts and having separate equipment. Both are pluses for the consumer.
I wrote last week that a company could seize market share by owning an identity and simplifying the category. That is absolutely true. But I failed to add a key component. Choice.
The key to this whole streaming cornucopia is quite simple – let customers choose which channels they want.
The issues with YouTube TV and others
But there are issues. First, you must have high-speed internet. Unfortunately, that usually comes from a cable provide. That providers wants you to bundle internet and TV so you can get a discount on both. And streaming takes a massing amount of date, especially if you plan on watching your streaming service through a mobile device on a 4G network.
Regardless of which service you choose, you are still stuck with a channel lineup. Sure, you may have 60 channels. But only want 15. However, you might not get the ones you want. I don’t see BBC America or TNT in the YouTube TV line up, for example.
Economics are involved. Channels don’t want to lose viewership because they need it for advertising revenue. The same company owns many channels, so they need to package them together in order to build up viewership of the new ones.
But these content producers see the writing on the wall. A new model for broadcast TV has arrived.
Moreover, it does not make the channel more desirable when media companies keep those channels from airing on streaming services. It makes it less desirable. Consumers will eventually forget about you. Better to join them than try to beat them.
I don’t see anyone doing anything about the first issue at this point. But the second?
I tell you this, the first streaming service that can offer real choice, without compromise, will change the category in much of the same way Netflix killed Blockbuster.
So, although the streaming TV category is overly confusing with overlapping and missing services, the interest by both consumers and providers is good for the category.
The Ember mug Tom Dougherty, CEO - Stealing Share 21 May 2019 The Ember mug makes you smarter My youngest son and his wife are notorious for giving some of the coolest gifts known to man. They are a thoughtful (and creative) couple. So whatever they’re...
Clif Bar Tom Dougherty, CEO - Stealing Share 20 May 2019 Clif Bar logo comes alive, mystery dies When it comes to branding, there’s always a fine line between keeping the mystery alive and blowing it open for all to see. Take Clif Bar, which is unveiling...
Social media study Tom Dougherty, CEO - Stealing Share 13 May 2019 Social media study shows struggle with importance Many marketers love social media because it’s cheap. And you can measure it in terms of likes, shares, retweets and comments. But, as a...