Is Aereo Actually a Good Thing?

Aereo: Streaming TV service may do

Streaming TV service may do broadcasters a favor by nudging them over to the cable business

When execs at several broadcasters openly intimated their willingness last week to convert their businesses to cable if the courts didn’t kill Aereo, it may have struck some as an overreaction.

(From the pages of the April 16 issue of Variety.)

After all, even the most generous assessment of the prospects for the Barry Diller-backed streaming-TV service would have to concede the federal appellate court’s refusal to grant the broadcasters’ request for a preliminary injunction was winning a battle in what will undoubtedly be a protracted war. And though it’s not Aereo’s first victory, few experts give its quest for legality much of a chance.

So why did News Corp. chief operating officer Chase Carey tell the crowd last Monday at the National Assn. of Broadcasters annual confab: “We will move to a subscription model if that’s our only recourse.” He was no outlier; executives at CBS and Univision issued statements echoing Carey’s threat later that day.

Of all the ways the broadcasters could have sent a message to the TV industry, to the courts and even to Congress, threatening to flee to cable could be interpreted as premature. Which has to make you wonder why Carey et al. went there in the first place.

It’s worth considering that we’re looking at this Aereo thing all wrong. While a news media that can’t resist dramatizing conflict depicts Aereo purely as the enemy, perhaps the venture also represents an opportunity. Because the more disruptive Aereo is made out to be, the more of an excuse the broadcasters have to exit their traditional business and transition to a more lucrative cable model.

To be sure, such a move would be a political hot potato. While only about 10% of the U.S. rely on over-the-air TV, transforming what has been a free public service for decades to a pay-only format would be savaged as a slight to the underclass who would be deprived of news and information at the local level.

But as long as Aereo exists, the companies that own broadcast properties can point their fingers and throw up their hands. Switching from broadcast to cable would neutralize Aereo, which would have nothing to retransmit.

The politically incorrect economic truth of the matter is that programmers don’t have much interest in reaching lower-income viewers because their lack of disposable income make them disposable to the advertisers who spend billions each year in commercials.

What’s more, a significant portion of these lower-income viewers would likely be forced to pay for cable.

The notion of a network converting to cable might seem impossible given the existence of its affiliate stations. They are often owned by the broadcasters’ parent companies, and doing their own programming at the local level, including sports telecasts that are a part of expensive rights deals with ironclad regionalized components.

But Lazard Capital Markets analyst Barton Crockett believes that regardless of whether stations are owned and operated by a broadcaster, pay TV distributors could be open to renegotiating carriage deals in a way that turns affiliates into regional networks.

“Going cable could be very accretive,” he said, noting News Corp. moving to a regional network model would also give the conglom more freedom to maneuver around caps on station ownership and newspaper/station cross-ownership.

Cable also has the advantage of looser content restrictions, an edge that has helped its ratings enough to make its most successful original series like AMC’s “The Walking Dead” become competitive with even the most popular broadcast series. Just imagine how much more impactful programming from an ABC or NBC would be if they didn’t have to worry about the FCC.

It used to be that advertisers were essentially the sole revenue stream for broadcasters. No wonder once the cable business came of age in the 1990s that its dual revenue stream of advertising and affiliate fees made it a superior model .

But the fiscal distinction between broadcast and cable has been blurred in recent years by the broadcasters’ ability to wangle for themselves a second revenue stream in the form of retransmission consent fees.

Number-crunching from Bernstein Research analyst Todd Juenger reveals that the losses incurred by vacating the broadcast model are more than recouped on the cable side. While he believes the dependence on sports and local branding make conversion unlikely, he calculated that distributors would likely shell out more in a liate fees than in retrans. And then there’s the windfall that would come from selling off station spectrum.

“There is a lot of game theory in laying out the scenarios of action and reaction, but there is enough logic here to suggest it wouldn’t be completely crazy for a cable operator to make a pre-emptive offer to broadcast networks in a given market to convert to a cable model,” he wrote.

Maybe instead of a lawsuit, the broadcasters should send Aereo a thank-you card.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 1

Leave a Reply

1 Comment

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Jim Reynolds says:

    I think this completely overlooks a simple, but pertinent, fact. Aereo exists in response to ever towering cable bills. For many, the $100+ monthly bill has reached an inflection point where the perceived value no longer weighs in favor of the bundle. By having the majors shift to cable, increasing costs from a $0.70 retrans to a $2-4 carriage fee, would force cable to increase their rates yet again. This will only exacerbate cord-cutting and develop into a negative feedback loop.

    Further, I think that the analysis assumes that Cable would simply accept them as channels. I certainly see the advantage to the broadcasters but what is the advantage for cable? Some would argue that sports are the key. But I would argue back that, from a negotiation standpoint, cable already gets the broadcaster sports as part of the existing retrans agreements. The broadcasters don’t have sports for leverage. So, I have to wonder why cable would voluntarily agree to increase their costs? All that broadcast would have to work with is advertising, sharing the avails. Of course, that would also decrease broadcaster revenue.

    Based on the all the above, I really don’t see how the Broadcasters are going to have a long-term win with that plan. Simply, it’s ludicrous to think that going to cable is the best option.

    The smart move would be to embrace Aereo and use it to bring the 54M Americans who have opted out of cable back into the system. Aereo is the non-cable cable company. Figure out a better way to monetize these outsiders other than trying to capture retrans dollars. All of these media companies have multiple networks. They could approach Aereo about offering their other nets a la carte at a higher rate than they currently get from cable carriage. There is no way that cable can get there without massive maneuvering but Aereo would make a great test bed. Also, why not figure out a way to capture a better media spend? Certainly the web-based Aereo has a much better ability to target their subscribers than the antiquated cable plant.

    Finally, as a longtime member of the media community I find the broadcasters posturing shameful. We are here to serve the public, not suck them dry. That’s why we, unlike the telcos, get our spectrum for free. Of course we are allowed to make money, but to threaten to use the public as pawns in some game of conglomerate chess is disrespectful to the public and our own heritage.

    We are better than this. We need to start acting that way.

More Digital News from Variety

Loading