A unified Australian TV service still makes sense, 5 years on

Tim Burrowes wrote a piece today about the validity of Australia's TV networks getting together to pursue a single free video on demand platform.

Last week him and I were going back and forth on text about this. I had mentioned 5 years ago I had put forward the same idea and been widely mocked. The comments were pretty feral and there was a reasonable theme of people saying I was a mix of naive and clueless. Truth be told, I started to feel better about the concept when Tim mentioned it as he's someone I think is pretty correct on where things are heading and in 2024 I think his timing is right. And here's my case.

• The year 2019 was too early for this concept as BVOD was seeing consumption growth in the range of 20-40% per year. In 2024 this is no longer the case, and BVOD growth across on demand and live is at low single digits. VPM 7 day rolling for w/c 17 March 2024 was 1,064 minutes with 6.4m people. For the same period in 2023 it was 1,169 minutes and 6.5m people.
• In 2019, VOZ hadn't launched and was in the promises stage. In 2024 the VOZ launched has spluttered and there is no network that would say they are happy with the rollout. The world changed a lot in the years VOZ was in the shed being tinkered with, both in measurement and competition. I would say with some confidence VOZ has not helped contribute to incremental investment on TV, if anything the delay has cost the industry a few hundred million and perhaps much more in the short term.
• In 2019 the TV networks united behind a common foe and had a collective voice. That voice was focused around attacking other media but the networks didn't attack their own, at least not publicly. 18 months of sluggish revenue has changed this and the attacks are much more prevalent. This could erode overall confidence in the medium. The lobby group also failed to identify a contemporary 'why' that could transcend beyond attacking others. In 2024 there is a strong argument there is more need than ever for the networks to become a collective force and find a unifying thread.
• In 2019 there was no credible TV type advertising product that wasn't via the TV networks. There was YouTube but they hadn't made the progress they have now in credibly comparing their offering to TV type user engagement. There was no SVOD ad platform and there was no Binge. In 2024 there is much more TV type content and the worst case scenario for the networks is the TV pie remains the same size, but the amount of participants fighting for that pie increases significantly.
• There is absolutely no user in the world who wouldn't want access to free TV content via one door. The same issue with 4 logins, 4 installs, 4 passwords, 4 different experiences remains the same as it was 5 years ago. The issue that faces BVOD bespoke apps is generating critical mass on their offering and content. If you're a light 7Plus user, and you're a light 7 viewer, how would you know the depth of content on that service? One of the things Netflix has going for it is frequency of use and depth of use. This means key programming generates sufficient awareness and tentpole series generate salience.
• In 2019 the competitive landscape was different. In 2024 TV networks compete directly with behemoths like Amazon who have more money, more data and more leverage. And they compete with Netflix. And they compete with themselves. Plus they need to negotiate with TV manufacturers to even get real estate on screens. BVOD/TV networks are squeezed at both ends - they lack the breadth of data to increase ad yield and demand (when competing with an Amazon), and they are facing margin erosion if they have to pay a pass through commission to a Google/LG/Samsung for simply existing on their platforms (which could be 30% off the top)
• In 2019 TV was not under the same level of attack it is now. You only have to look at the tone and coverage of the 'Future of TV' summit to see how quickly this has gone downhill. TV in my view is more vibrant and exciting than ever but it is losing the battle on the narrative and is being forced to constantly play defence. My view is TV/video can become a $10 billion dollar market in Australia and is the number 1 growth area of any media channel (and can eat up out of home, radio and display) but this is a live opportunity that is being squandered. TV deserves much better coverage than what it is receiving and my experience suggests the trade press discussion is not at all reflective of senior marketer views.
• The networks have innovated in the past 5 years - this is absolutely not a judgement on this. They have improved experiences, improved content, added rights that were previously trapped on mobile devices (like AFL etc) and improved the ad sales experience. This isn't a problem created by lack of movement, it's more an opportunity to be a large beneficiary of future value creation.
• Individually it is difficult for any one network to implement a legitimately transformational data layer. Amazon has millions of transactions every day powering its ad targeting, Netflix has ubiquitous domestic usage as well as troves of international data, YouTube is powered by a mammoth search database of intent, shopping data, browser data, plus immense AI processing of all forms of content. A singular TV on demand proposition could partner with a business like Woolworths Group which could act as a consumer intelligence layer with loyalty and scan data that would be significantly deeper than Amazon domestically. This would be material and transformational for both and provide high competitive advantage for all parties. I would doubt a Woolworths would do this in a way that truly mattered with one provider. The idea of Woolworths owning a video based media business that could be core accretive is a fascinating one. But without information this powerful and deep, how can a scale contingent media business compete?
• This service would need a new brand and proposition. This doesn't mean the existing network brands don't have some currency - but the promise needs to be bigger and bolder than ever before, and this would require reinvention.

5 years ago I wrote that "Free TV must adapt and needs to look at how it reimagines itself as a modern entertainment platform built to thrive in the future, not protect past legacies." I would say this remains the case.

Seven, Nine, SBS, ABC and Ten could merge their services into one platform and create one destination for all Australian audiences.

A powerful data partner that is all-in would be the other piece. Woolworths is a smart choice as there's some shared rivals between them and the TV businesses.

Let's not pretend Freeview is a version of this vision. The ambition simply isn't there and it's not something that has engaged audiences. Freeview is a pale version of the networks apps (which in my mind are good) which in some ways is a signal it was always a second class project.

I acknowledge that there are loads of incumbent reasons why this isn't a good or particularly deliverable idea. Who owns what? How is revenue shared? Who is the boss? Who sells the ads? What about the linear transmitters? What happens to the existing apps? What about competition law? What about ratings? Who contributes the money required? What is technically required? What about the content agreements? Does this impact rights usage? Will this kill competitive tension on biddable rights etc?

So instead of working out why this isn't a good idea based on the past, what would happen if we reframed our thinking and asked 'what would need to be true' for this to work in the future?

The opportunity is there. And if the networks don't take it, someone else will.