To SlingTV or Not To Sling TV: Defining The Question

To SlingTV or Not To Sling TV: Defining The Question

Dish was the only television industry player with real news at CES this year. Their new V-POP, SlingTV, made its debut there with a considerably smaller channel line-up than many were expecting.

I think many people are looking at Sling the wrong way though, in that they see it as a substitute for a pay TV subscription.

It’s not.

It’s a competitor for Netflix or Hulu or even Spotify with a higher price point. The audience for Sling is not viewing it as a way to rid themselves of a bloated cable package, because they don't have a cable package, bloated or otherwise. For them, it's going to be a way to supplement their pre-existing online-only options, like Netflix, with some live TV.

So success will boil down to whether or not the target audience feels that they’ll watch enough live ESPN, Bloomberg and Disney Channel to justify paying $20 a month for it. It’s a curious proposition because if you’re comparing SlingTV to Netflix, which is $8/month (and has no commercials) you’d have to feel that SlingTV was more than twice as valuable as Netflix to be worth the outlay.

That's worth watching because the key value proposition of Sling is that it provides viewers with live TV. The sports and news offerings are adequate: ESPN doesn’t run every NFL or NBA game, and Bloomberg and CNN Headline news are just two voices. So the question becomes how badly does the millennial target want a live TV option?

It's an interesting question because realistically, many of the shows on Disney Channel and ABC Family are also available via Hulu and Netflix, though not, granted, their current season. So again, it comes down to the question of whether, say, the current season of The Fosters is worth $20/month or if it's okay to wait 6 months for it.

(There's also option C, which is to buy the current season of The Fosters on iTunes or Amazon for about $20-$30, a one-time outlay.)

There’s also the advertising conundrum: Sling.TV is going to have advertising on it and Amazon, Netflix and iTunes don’t. Which makes paying $20 a month for the service an even tougher sell. There’s an interesting paradox there too: most of the programming on Netflix and Amazon got made because the first run versions appeared on linear network TV and were funded by the revenue from said commercials. If we start devaluing commercials and don’t come up with an adequate replacement, that deep well of programming the streaming services rely on is going to dry up in a hurry.

There's one other important thing to note about Sling: it makes V-POPs real. Charlie Ergen did the industry a huge favor by going first, which is the one thing most people (in any industry) don’t want to do. So now that the gauntlet’s been thrown down, look for more V-POPs to emerge. Some of which may actually try to be an alternative to a full-on cable package.

Stay tuned.

Doug Freyburger

Senior Consultant at Red Hat, 21K connections

9 年

A point about the commercial paradox Erik S mentioned - Shows were paid for by commercials on network TV. That was true until cable channels. Now a lot of shows are paid by cable subscriptions and very recently at least one is paid for by Netflix subscriptions. I would pay for certain cable channels if I could get them in packages of my own chosing or one at a time. FoodTV + Cooking Channel or HGTV plus DIY Channel.

回复
Doug Freyburger

Senior Consultant at Red Hat, 21K connections

9 年

We use Netflix and Amazon for canned shows. We use antenna for live TV. A side effect of antenna is *current* shows. So we watch Bones and Crossing Jordan, Scorpion and ST Enterprise and so on. Get me live local TV over the network and I drop the antenna. Get me live network TV over the network and I drop the Tivo I use to record shows off the antenna. I'll pay a small subscription for either. But the price of a cable bundle? Forget it now that I am no longer forced to have one.

回复
Erik Schwartz

Streaming Video Expert | Sports Tech Specialist | Deconstructed Video Inventor | Founder | Team Builder | Investor | Advisor | Builder

9 年

HUGE point... "There’s an interesting paradox there too: most of the programming on Netflix and Amazon got made because the first run versions appeared on linear network TV and were funded by the revenue from said commercials. If we start devaluing commercials and don’t come up with an adequate replacement, that deep well of programming the streaming services rely on is going to dry up in a hurry."

Kevin Burke

Revenue Generator | Marketing & Partnership Strategist | Sports, Outdoors & Recreation

9 年

Always enjoy reading your insights Alan! The first thing that sticks out to me is how great of a move this is for ESPN. Especially when it comes to building subscribers for their top two television properties (ESPN and ESPN2). Most sports content is destination programming. Meaning that sports fans seek out the content that pertains to their team. With this entry level option targeted towards millennials who want to access LIVE sports content via the web, I only see it sparking their apatite for more. Once they watch their favorite college team play on one of the top ESPN properties, it won't be long before they ask themselves "how can I watch more of these college games?". In many cases (Ex: Sun Belt Conference) the answer will be ESPN3 and the WATCH ESPN App, but in the case of SEC fans the answer is the SEC Network. By giving these young budding sports fans access to the big games for a nominal monthly investment, DISH is putting themselves in a great position to up-sell customers by being the first to gain their business. My big question is if SlingTV subscribers will be able to access the authenticated WATCH ESPN (ESPN3) platforms. My guess is that they may have to upgrade (upsell #1) to access that feature. Do you happen to know?

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Alan Wolk的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了