Schr?dinger's FAST: there, and not there

FAST outside of the US is a curious animal, simultaneously overestimated and underestimated.

What tends to be overestimated is the size of the standalone economic opportunity international FAST presents for media owners, and the purported pervasiveness of the FAST opportunity across international geographies.

The US is legit, of course. Data from Ampere Analysis shows the US market accounts for 77% of global FAST revenues, which are forecast to grow by a further 59% over the next four years to $2.6bn. Canada represents the second largest single FAST market with a 6% global market share.

However, for Europe and Asia Pacific, despite all the industry noise, the FAST opportunity is proving a lot harder to pin down. Europe’s FAST sector faces the challenge of well-established free BVOD incumbents, and the region currently accounts for 11% of the global market. Asia Pacific’s strong AVoD market (worth c. $5.7bn) suggests it is ripe for FAST growth, but at present the region holds just a 4% share of global FAST revenues, according to data from Ampere Analysis. ?

What tends to be underestimated is FAST’s genuine potential for a differentiated consumer model, compared with ‘traditional’ linear TV and compared with AVOD and BVOD.

Case in point - Ampere Analysis’s Lottie Towler 's recent post on News channels on US FAST platforms also provided a very interesting snapshot of the high levels of turnover of channels on FAST platforms. See here: ?

This constant rate of propositional change is a uniquely FAST attribute. Linear TV platforms have never turned over channels in this way, and the standard cycling of VOD content on and off S/A/BVOD platforms isn’t in the same league of changeability as the seeming perpetual flux of FAST channels.

‘True FAST’ - an underrated consumer model

With its ‘pop-up’ channels, thematic channels, single-IP channels, and a healthy disregard for consistent EPG ordering, FAST does seem to be creating a new type of consumer offer, that whilst linear in nature, is in many ways nothing like the ‘traditional’ linear model that preceded it. Yet people do tend to trip themselves up on what FAST is and isn’t. Even IP simulcasts of ‘traditional’ linear channels online get categorised as FAST in some conversations. The confusion around what is FAST and what isn’t is understandable when you consider that are probably as many as four distinct types of service that get lumped into an overall ‘FAST’ category: ‘True FAST’, ‘TVOS FAST’, ‘BVOD FAST’, and ‘AVOD FAST’.

It's the ‘True Fast’ model that offers the most potential as a genuinely differentiated consumer proposition. The flag bearer for ‘True Fast’, in my view, is Pluto TV, the original FAST innovator in the US. I like to think of Pluto TV as ‘True FAST’ because it has these characteristics that set it aside from the ‘other’ FAST categories:

1. Pure play: Pluto, in nearly all its international iterations, is pure play FAST. It has its own beautifully simple app and aims for ubiquitous distribution. It’s not merged in with (and contained by the reach of) another consumer proposition – be that a TVOS / device, or an AVOD or BVOD proposition. Pluto’s consumer messaging is simple, as is Pluto’s consumer experience, unsaddled as it is with the conflicting consumer journeys that can sometimes blight TVOS FAST, AVOD FAST and BVOD FAST. ?
2. Linear first: Pluto is an unashamedly linear-first proposition. Pluto understands that the genuine difference in and consumer value of the FAST model is its lean back, low commitment consumer promise – and that linear scheduling delivers this promise best.??? ?
3. Expertly curated: Pluto in the US is, and has always been, a thoughtfully curated and crafted proposition. The way Pluto acquires content, packages content, brands channels and markets itself and its partners is core to its identity with consumers and its success with consumers and advertisers. Pluto’s single-minded consumer focus on FAST makes for a warmer, livelier, and more pleasurable experience than TVOS FAST, AVOD FAST and BVOD FAST.

But is simplicity overrated?

Does being 'True FAST' really confer outsized advantages over the other FAST models? Well, in the US, maybe not really. Such has been the dearth of Free TV services in the US, any TV service offering reasonable quality series and films for free can build a good amount of consumer and advertiser interest – there’s so much pent-up demand.

But, back to International FAST - that dearth of quality Free TV services is not a characteristic of the major economies of Western Europe and Asia Pacific. As a rule, these markets are very well served by excellent free TV offers, in most cases from the local Public Service Broadcasters. In these markets, the type of FAST model really does matter.

You can make a good case that at a platform level, maybe it doesn't matter so much. For TVOS / AVOD / BVOD platforms the FAST channels are probably not a major consumption driver but are nonetheless useful. For TVOS the incremental ad revenue helps to support the not insubstantial revenue they’re likely getting from selling app prominence and UI promotions. For AVOD / BVOD platforms, the FAST channels will add perceived range to the proposition and may keep people in-app for marginally longer and may have people thinking about returning marginally more frequently.

For content owners, discoverability is more critical than ever

But the distinction really should matter to content owners. For consumers, convenience is the main driver of choice of Connected TVs. Research conducted by MTM in London shows that Connected TV user journeys are extremely fast, often lasting just a few seconds, and favour habitual journeys, where consumers tend to be closed off to discovering content. Time-pressured households often don't have the patience for discovering additional content - and if they do, MTM's research suggests they're much more likely do their exploring in Netflix or Amazon, not the BVOD players.

In connected TV's environment of fleeting attention, FAST channels buried down the page on TVOS, AVOD and BVOD services will inevitably struggle to gain traction.

That’s likely a reason why Sports providers – who understand better than anyone the critical need for consumer simplicity and discoverability around live events – are favouring the ‘True Fast’ model.

Just last week Apple TV allowed Lionel Messi’s Inter Miami v FC Cincinnati match in the U.S. Open Cup semi-final - normally behind a $12.99 a month paywall - onto FAST. It was Pluto TV that streamed the match. This month in Germany, DAZN announced it was broadening its distribution of football, martial arts, women’s sports, and darts, into free-to-air, with four new FAST channels. DAZN, too, opted for ‘True Fast’, choosing Pluto TV to launch the channels. ??

Pluto TV's ‘True FAST’ model – its single-purpose brand promise, frictionless and visually engaging UI, and low-commitment engagement model – looks like a superior FAST model for consumers and content providers. Recent data from Ampere Analysis on the international advertising revenues for the bigger ‘FAST / AVOD’ seems to bear this out: ?

(Samsung’s revenues, I expect, are heavily weighted towards display advertising revenues – the ‘in stream’ ad revenues are likely a portion of their revenue).

?

FAST serves many purposes, for advertisers, platforms, consumers, and content owners. I’d say all the FAST models work for advertisers, give or take. Similarly, all FAST models will be of some use to platform operators, give or take. But for consumers, the experience is inconsistent across the four models, and where the experience is less optimal, the content owners lose out, too. It’s relatively early days for FAST internationally, so there’s hope that the underdeveloped – and underestimated – consumer experience might yet coalesce around the winning traits of ‘True Fast’.