Ultimately, there are two immovable parties in television: the people who create something worth watching and the audience. Without either, there is not much a business. Everyone else is an intermediary: broadcasters, networks, stations, cable operators, satellite providers, Internet TV portals, telco's, television guides, set top box makers, etc. These intermediaries exist only so long as they fulfill a function that cannot be economically replaced with some viable alternative.

In the picture below, the important takeaway is that when well established rules exist, each party is free to seek a business advantage without owning the whole ecosystem. For example, the networks know that most of their revenue comes from the $27B in national ad revenue with their main expense being the studios. TV stations allocated ad inventory to compete for part of the $25B in spot advertising with their expenses being station management. Cable companies get 88% of their revenue from subscriptions with 12% coming from an additional $5B in spot advertising. Their primary expenses are plant operations and network carriage fees.


The picture is a generalization of the business. Each sector (broadcast, cable, and satellite) have unique specifics. Some companies participate in multiple boxes. NBC, for example, has some studios, is a network, and owns 13 stations. IPTV will look more like cable when it is deployed.

The best content still comes from the traditional studio mechanism. Until studios test changes to their business model, broadcast and cable networks like CBS and USA (for example) will still loom large. Recent news indicates that the networks are leveraging this power by looking only for incremental revenue streams through new distribution channels. In terms of the picture above, they test system operator changes; put 100% dependence upon viewer fees for revenue; and ignore advertiser subsidization.

The last few weeks have seen a host of business deals aimed at making it easier for television viewers to watch shows whenever and wherever they choose. These new arrangements include NBC and CBS's plans for 99-cent video-on-demand and Apple's iPod link-up with ABC for $1.99 per episode.

The Apple iPod deal with ABC tests one possible idea about how mobile, non-linear viewing might be monetized. Apple is a new player in the equation, but what they are testing is the use of their iTunes web site as an alternative distribution mechanism, replacing the stations and cable companies. Their iPod is a replacement for the television itself. Expect more things like this as cell phones gear up for big offerings next year.

The CBS deal is the same experiment sans the word 'mobile.' It too is an experiment that keeps the existing network fully in control of the non-linear viewing process. CBS still airs it popular content on linear television, still collects significant ad revenue from advertisers, and uses Comcast's VOD servers as an alternative distribution mechanism.

The Wall Street Journal points out that "these pacts might give the networks added leverage in their contention that they should be compensated by cable and satellite companies who distribute the broadcasters' signal into the vast majority of U.S. homes."

... "For years, broadcasters and local television stations have been frustrated that cable carriers shell out fees to ... cable networks based on the number of subscribers ... but pay nothing to transmit the signals of ABC, NBC, Fox and CBS... So, for example, big cable companies like Time Warner Inc. or Comcast pay 55 cents to General Electric Co.'s USA Network for every household that receives the cable signal."

The gist of their article is that these experiments are supposed to give the networks leverage in eventually extracting carriage fees from Comcast and Time Warner. The article fails to mention that USA Network also turns over to the cable companies 2 minutes per hour for local ad insertion -- something that ABC, CBS, and NBC would never accept.

But if the WSJ is correct about the broadcaster's thinking, then that strategy misses out on the real opportunity: determining how Comcast and CBS might eventually scrap the whole carriage fee idea that works only in linear television. In its place they could put a new arrangement that splits up non-linear advertising dollars amongst the parties.

The entrepreneur in me keeps a close eye on the ABC and CBS experiments because what they are really testing is whether the viewer is willing to pay ever more money to watch non-linear video. I suspect that both experiments will fail to create any enduring revenue streams. But the unintended success might be in forging the business relationships between powerhouse broadcasters and cable companies VOD distribution.

This step is necessary to support a sustainable business model for non-linear television. If I had to sum up what is missing before VOD can take off it is this: the parties do not yet know how to seek a business advantage without owning the whole ecosystem. This is in sharp contrast to the linear model.

What's apparent is that consumers appear to be clear winners, as competing sides of the entertainment industry jostle for their attention. But the group most ignored in the debate is the one that theoretically could gain the most from the shift in how consumers watch television: writers and producers. Traditionally this group negotiates with networks for distribution. The networks really are a branding and promotion business that assumes the risks associated with advertising by shifting it off of the producers. A truly radical change to the business model will occur when they begin experimenting in new ideas.