Featured Post

Side-Giggers And The Future

In the advertising world, moonlighting while holding down a full time job has been around for decades. Millennials have taken it to a new he...

Thursday, June 2, 2022

A Disturbing Headline

 

Throughout my life, I have always been and remain something of a business news junkie. I follow markets, marketing trends, the media (natch) and consumer behavior quite closely.

 

A few days ago, I the following headline: “Subprime Car Loan Defaults Hit An All Time High in February.” I thought it might be an exaggeration, so I read it and then searched elsewhere. A second source put it as the highest level since 2007. A half hour later, I found a CNBC interview replayed on You Tube that confirmed the 2007 date.

 

Okay, why does this strike me as a big deal? Let us back just a bit. For much of my adult life, many mainstream economists would say that the economy was essentially stable. One outlier whom I loved to read was Hyman Minsky who argued forcefully that the economy was inherently unstable. He was suspicious of expanding credit too widely. Prior to his death in 1996, he developed his Financial Instability Hypothesis. To Minsky, there were, in broad strokes, three types of borrowers:

 

1)  Hedge—These people have no problem making payments of both interest and principal (99% of the readers of this blog, I would presume). They dutifully pay off their mortgages or car loans and credit card balances and sometimes add a bit of principal to a payment to save interest expenses.

2)  Speculative—these folks are stretched and can only handle the interest payments. I met more than a few in 2006-2008 who had interest-only mortgages.

3)  Ponzi—name in honor of 1920’s Boston area conman Charles Ponzi, these dreamers are betting on rapid increase in asset value to bail them out. If you think they are imaginary, remember the sub-prime mortgage holders in 2007-2008, many of whom did not even have jobs or income but bought homes based on hope. Perhaps more amazingly, institutions gave them loans in a frothy real estate market.

 

Okay. So now we have the current issue of sub-prime car loans. They have always been part of the auto sales mix but it appears with the relief checks sent out during the early part of the Covid crisis plus the tax breaks for parents with young children, a number of rather poor credit risks were more flush than they had ever been. To their credit, many paid down their credit card balances and also saved part of the windfall.

 

Others, however, were able to buy new cars in 2021 and many were purchasing vehicles far more expensive than they have ever owned before. Now, these sub-prime borrowers are getting whipsawed by sharp increases in gasoline costs and rising food prices. So, some are behind on their car loans. The latest data say that 8.8% of sub-prime car loans are more than 60 days behind.  If you have a long commute to work, you are really stuck—you need a vehicle and gasoline costs are soaring.

 

More ominous is that many had not paid off their existing car loan when they traded up last year and took out 84-month loans (seven years!) on their new vehicles plus what they owed on their existing car.

 

Most media headlines talk about low unemployment and how flush consumers are. There is no question people who were struggling prior to the pandemic got some real breathing room with the stimulus payments plus the tax credits. Now, with inflation hitting fuel and food, the sub-prime borrowers are in trouble again.

 

Whenever the next recession hits (2023 perhaps), more people are likely to slip out of the middle class than we have seen in some time. Dig beneath the headlines, I say. Things may not be so rosy as they appear.

 

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a comment on the blog.

 

 

Wednesday, May 18, 2022

The Future of Streaming Video

 

Back on February 28th of this year, I put up a post entitled “Should Netflix Still Be a FAANG? The response was quite strong with many people saying that I was commenting way above my pay grade and should stay out of securities analysis (which I did not think that I was doing). Since then, with the collapse of Netflix from $700 per share to a recent low of $162.71 a few people have contacted me and asked how I knew what was going to happen. One called me a seer.

 

Well, I do not think that I am an idiot as some hinted at and I know for sure that I am not a seer. The share price of Netflix was taken down sharply as in the last quarter their subscriber count actually dropped by two hundred thousand. Disney shares also have been halved over the last year going down with the general market in 2022 but also, likely due to fallout from the Netflix decline.

 

Here is my take on what is going on:

 

Streaming video is definitely not finished. This decline in share prices is merely a hiccup or slowdown that generally occurs in many dynamic industries. And, as mentioned in the February post, there is a great deal more competition in the streaming space these days vs. a few years ago when Netflix looked as if they had won the “war.”

 

Please keep a few things in mind. Netflix’ business model was based on continuous subscriber growth. Many of us loved their programming but they borrowed heavily to produce it and they were not a well- diversified entity.

 

Think about their competition. Disney + is, at best, one fourth of Disney revenue. They have the theme parks, cruise ships, movie studios, ESPN, Hulu, ABC and many other properties. Apple and Amazon are huge entities that can lose billions in streaming over the next decade and not really feel it. This fall, Thursday Night Football will be a digital only format on Amazon Prime Video. More sporting events are sure to follow on various streaming properties globally.

 

Yes, at some point soon, Netflix and perhaps Disney + will have a subscription tier with reduced costs if commercials are allowed. I do not think that this will put an end to cable cord-cutting. Netflix is planning to enforce the number of users on a single subscription more rigidly but again, I do not see that as death knell to the service.

 

There was a time when I thought that Apple or Disney should have purchased Netflix but then the share price put it out range in terms of value. Also, we all remember the time years ago when Netflix approached Blockbuster (remember them ) about an equity arrangement and were rebuffed.

 

Younger adults across the world love streaming and they are the future of home entertainment. All of us are enjoying the commercial free aspects of most existing streaming services and the content is quite good as well.

 

Financially, one hindrance to growth may be the lower subscription rates offered in some developing countries, particularly India. Subscriber growth may look robust but revenue not so much.

 

Cable and over the air TV are in a steady decline. The recent stock market valuations of streaming services will not change that. Growth may be slower especially if Western countries have a recession over the next 24 months, but the future looks solid.

 

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

 

Monday, April 25, 2022

My Final Entitlement Rant

Over the years, I have been an outspoken critic of how governments in the western world have never had the political courage to face the demographic disaster that marches relentlessly towards them. In person, I have often found that I need to check myself so as not to disrupt a pleasant gathering or dinner with my warning.

 

The media world ignores the inevitable. Yes, a few Cassandras arguing about imminent Wall Street collapse sometimes mention the issue as an aside. So, I promise, for the last time in Media Realism, I will in this post provide a less than gentle reminder of some future troubles.

 

Demographics drive the bus in society as I have often written. With all the side noise such as the horrors of Covid and the disaster in Ukraine, the demographic trends continue to move right along at many developed nations. The issue can be centered around one term—entitlements.

 

When Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid were instituted in the United States we were a much younger nation demographically. Sixty-five was considered a fair age to initiate benefits as not all that many lived longer than that in the 1930’s when Social Security entered the picture. Yet medicine improved and knowledge about heart disease and the dangers of smoking increased and people took better care of themselves and began living longer.

 

Today, people in Western societies have far fewer children than earlier generations. Part of that is a big positive—millions of talented women are no longer housebound and are contributing mightily to virtually every profession. The problem is that they have fewer children than earlier generations so the number of workers paying into safety net programs is less relative to what it used to be. At one time, some 7.5 people were paying into Social Security for every one person receiving it. Now that number is closer to 1.5. So, in the not-too-distant future, something has to give.

 

Solutions would be raising income taxes and/or cutting benefits or slashing Federal spending (not to be cynical but the last suggestion is NOT going to happen). The situation is far worse in Western Europe where you have a somewhat older population and a firmly entrenched “provider state” that covers virtually all citizens.

 

So, the tidal wave is coming. It may appear far off. I know that I may not live to see it play out fully. Reform of government programs and spending plus a simplified and truly fair tax system are needed to deal with this issue. If not now, when?

 

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Saturday, March 26, 2022

Some Odd Notes From The History of Media

 

I, along with a handful of other gentle eccentrics, am often referred to as a media historian. From time-to-time people will ask me to describe some unusual moments in media and marketing history. Trying to avoid being even more breathtakingly boring than normal, I usually pass. Yet today, after a bit of prompting, I will tell two surprising stories from the past.

 

Way back in the 1970’s, I would go to London every 18 months or so. Once I ventured on to Jermyn Street, home of bespoke (made to measure) shirts and stepped into Turnbull & Asser, perhaps the most famous shop in that genre. There was a medallion stating that Turnbull was the shirtmaker to HRH Prince Charles. While I nervously made a purchase, I asked the somewhat snooty clerk if Charles actually visited the shop. He said, “the Prince of Wales has all of his shirtings made by us.” Shirtings was a new term for this lad from rural Rhode Island but I smiled and nodded. As I left, I wondered where appointment to this royal or that originated for so many products.

 

As best as I can tell here it is---

 

Josiah Wedgewood was a clever young potter in 18th century London who could have succeeded on Madison Avenue had he been born two centuries later. He teamed up with Thomas Whieldon, a highly regarded established potter at a young age and developed a green glaze that became very popular. At the same time, an emerging middle class and upper middle class began to take shape as the industrialization of the West began to get traction. Having some courage or chutzpah, Wedgewood sold young Queen Charlotte, wife of George III, some of his cream-colored dinnerware in 1765. She loved it and commissioned some wildly expensive gold leaf plates from Wedgwood and Bentley, the firm’s new name.

 

 Wedgwood was off to the races. Upwardly mobile Brits wanted to have the Queen’s pottery in their homes as well. He dubbed his new product (not the gold leaf special order) “Queen’s Ware”. On his invoices he boldly had “Potter to Her Majesty” printed at the top of each bill of sale. At other times, he mentioned the then Duke of York as a client. He also sent agents to wealth pockets on the continent such as Leipzig and Lyons and their sales continued to boom. By 1770, they were so well known that Empress Catherine of Russia (aka Catherine the Great) ordered custom pottery for her court. That had real cache among the nouveau riche throughout Europe.

 

Wedgwood also impacted marketing in two big ways:

 

1)  In West London, he built the first showroom. When the elite visited London, they could stop at his retail location and buy existing inventory or order custom products. Sales soared.

2)  There is some dispute on this but many credit Wedgwood for creating direct mail. It was probably easy to get a list together by sending to the peerage, some high clerics, and members of Parliament. It worked splendidly and direct mail still does well today despite online options.

 

 

Okay. Now get set for a genuine surprise.

 

In 1878, Cardinal Pecci was elected pope and became Pope Leo XIII. After 30+ years of the controversial Pius IX, the college of cardinals elected the frail 68 year old Pecci as a transition pope. He fooled them all by living 25 years until 1903!

 

Pope Leo was a smooth diplomat and responsible for more writing via encyclicals than any pope in history. He also had a fondness for a wine called Vin Mariani. It was made by a French vintner named Angelo Mariani. Pope Leo liked it so much that he allegedly carried a hip flask containing it and took the rare step of giving Mariani a gold medal to “recognize the benefits received” by the product. So what? Well, Vin Mariani contained cocaine and was said to be popular with Queen Victoria, author Jules Verne, and in America, Thomas Edison. St. Pope Pius X, who succeeded Leo in 1903, was also said to be a Vin Mariani enthusiast. Some say that John Pemberton put a bit of cocaine in the original Coca-Cola formula and got the idea from Mariani. Hard to prove.

 

The story does not end there. Mariani used Leo XIII in print ads and quoted the Pontiff’s comments about the wine. There is no record if the Pope received residuals for his presence in the advertisements.

 

So, who knows? Maybe Pope Francis will pop up one day touting one of those high-altitude Malbecs from his native Argentina that I like so much .

 

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.

 

 

Monday, February 28, 2022

Should Netflix Still Be A FAANG?

 

For the last several years, securities analysts have come up with an acronym that covers what they considered to be companies that were long term growth stocks which, barring minor dips, would be superb long-term holdings.

 

The term that was coined was FAANG which stood for the following blue chip high growth companies:

 

Facebook (now Meta)

 

Amazon

 

Apple

 

Netflix

 

Google (now Alphabet)

 

Recent events may made me question, as a media analyst, whether Netflix still belongs as a member of that exclusive club.

 

 

How can this be? You may remind me that a couple of years ago in MR I stated plainly that Netflix had won the race in streaming video (See Media Realism, 2/11/19, Can Any Competitor Catch Netflix?) Well, a beauty of markets, particularly those that are relatively free, is that they are always changing.

 

Netflix is beginning to face some serious competition from Amazon, Apple TV, and Disney +. Millions are beginning to customize their video needs and, with their recent price increase, some may not include Netflix in their future plans.

 

Face it. Virtually all streaming services received a positive boost from the hellish lifestyle environment that COVID 19 gave us. Being more housebound, we watched more video and shared more favorite video ideas with friends and family. As COVID wans (we all hope), that tailwind will erode. Keep in mind that by the end of 2021, Disney + had already shattered their pre-Covid projections for subscriptions in 2025!

 

So, all services could see a slowdown in growth. Netflix received some raised eyebrows when their 8.3 million subscriber growth in 4th quarter, 2021 was below the 8.5 million generated in the same quarter of the previous year. Still growing, for sure, but not at a FAANG type juggernaut pace. Streaming will likely take up a smaller percentage of people’s time, once we are free to socialize and travel as we did in the pre-Covid era.

 

Inflation is now at the highest levels in the US in 40 years. Money is going to get tight for many people. Do you really need to pay $15.47 per month for standalone Netflix? People may become more selective on their streaming options and Netflix could lose a few steps.

 

All streaming services suffer from “churn”. Customers order for a few months to see a specific series or two and then promptly cancel. This might hurt Netflix more than others as they do not have a balance sheet as strong as their competitors.

 

Consider both Apple and Amazon.  Apple had as much as $248 billion on their balance sheet a couple of years ago. They could lose a billion plus per year on Apple TV forever and it would not impact the company much at all. Or, how about Amazon? Their programming is getting deeper and the transmission issues of a few years ago are gone. Another sleeper with Amazon is that some minor research studies showed that many Amazon Prime subscribers did not realize that Amazon Prime Video came with their Prime subscription.

 

Anecdotally, I found this to be true. I vividly remember telling a group how much I enjoyed a certain offering on Amazon Prime Video. An earnest young lad lamented that he did not have the service. “Of course, you do, a friend chimed in. It comes as part of your Amazon Prime sub.” He smiled and said, “Wow, I get it for free.” It was my turn to smile. I wanted to tell him that only sunshine and air are free in this life, but I stressed the Prime Video was baked into the cost of his subscription. So, Amazon is getting more users as Amazon Prime grows and more people around the world use the delivery service.

 

Each year, Netflix spends a fortune on developing programming. It has run as high as $12 billion. That is a lot for any firm to handle but, keep in mind that Netflix is a one trick pony. They did not make a profit for years and many assumed that they would be another Amazon who merely plowed all revenue back into development but eventually turned the corner and profits soared. Well, Netflix is not Amazon.

 

Disney is perhaps the greatest entertainment company in history with a film library of their own work going back to the 1930’s plus ownership of ESPN, ABC, theme parks and seven movie studios. Netflix does not have nearly as many revenue sources as major competition.

 

Okay, so am I saying that Netflix is going to dry up and blow away soon? Of course not! One option might be to accept advertising. I fully realize that such a course of action sounds as if it is heresy for a firm that has been advertising free. Yet, millions might allow advertising within limits if the monthly subscription cost drop sharply (maybe 40% of current cost).

 

Also, moving into other venues such as news items or foreign sports might work as they are now in most countries across the globe.

 

My favorite media analyst, Laura Martin of Needham has discussed how the share price of Netflix has taken a big haircut from $700 to around $395 as I type. The price to earnings ratio has dropped as has its growth multiple to the entire market. She now says that “Netflix is not a growth stock anymore but a media stock.” That is a statement that this old media analyst can relate to very easily. So, perhaps the day is coming soon when the N in FAANG should be eliminated or replaced.

 

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monday, February 21, 2022

The Wisdom of Crowds and the Growth of Streaming Video

 

In economics, there are many ways that analysts will tell you how markets behave. One is known as The Wisdom of Crowds. To exhibit “Wisdom of Crowds” most would say that a market needs to satisfy the following conditions:

 

1)  People involved in that specific market are quite diverse in their access to information

2)  They have opinions which can be quite independent and often do not follow the crowd or defer to others

3)  They are decentralized (sometimes globally in today’s world) so they often use local knowledge or interest

4)  Their choices or judgements tend to aggregate into a decision which appears collective although not planned.

 

Watching video growth in recent years and the broadcast and cable decline, I think a case can be made and not a big stretch at all, that the Wisdom of Crowds has accelerated the growth of viewing habits around the world.

 

To understand this, let us back up a bit. When I first entered the communications business in the early 1970’s, TV viewers did not have a great many choices. There was ABC, CBS, and CBS plus PBS and a handful of independent stations in relatively large metropolitan areas. Programs survived in Primetime (8-11 pm, EST) if they could garner a 30% share of viewing. The death rate of new programs was brutal. I did an analysis early in this century which found that approximately 72% of new programs died in the first year of telecast.

 

Cable came along as the subscriber count grew and got some traction but the progress was slow. A key variable drummed into me from my first months in advertising was not how good programming was but what was the strength of the programming that it was COMPETING against? That simple stat largely determined the lifespan of a program.

 

CBS tried a few novel and even daring approaches in the late 1980’s. Opposite the then powerful Thursday night block on NBC, they a Vietnam war drama, Tour of Duty against top rated Cosby and Family Ties. The show won awards but delivered low ratings. They stayed with it and in year three moved it to Saturday. In 1988, they put Murphy Brown up against Monday Night Football. That show clicked and had a long and successful run. Yet, advertiser support was not as strong as you might think in year one, as the competition appeared fearsome.

 

During this era of the 1970’s and ‘80’s, a concept that was popular was that of LOP which stood for Least Objectionable Programming. A network executive coined the term and essentially said that, with few choices, viewers would pivot to the Least Objectionable Programming, but they would watch television most evenings. Yes, one could curl up with a good book, but not many did.

 

Today, all that is gone. We do not worry about timeslots as with the growth of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple TV and Disney + and fellow travelers it is commercial avoidance that is hurting advertiser supported programming. The quality of the advertising free content is excellent in many cases and, if you have a few streaming options, you can virtually always find something of interest to watch.

 

So, streaming continues to get stronger. One reason, and I realize some of you might consider this controversial, is the concept of the Wisdom of Crowds. Streaming fits all the criteria necessary in that kind of market activity.

 

Let’s face it—each day we have hundreds of options from programming shot all over the world. Detective dramas may be stale to US TV viewers but check out the great work as I have coming out of the UK, Ireland, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. ABC, CBS, and NBC never had to compete with such programming a generation ago except for an occasional 4-6 part series on PBS’ Masterpiece Theatre (now Masterpiece). Friends recommend a program that is streaming to others and shows get legs and often get fairly quick renewals.

 

There is a lack of censorship so these streaming foreign imports can deal with mature themes that will never see the light of day on over the air TV in the states and much of the cable universe as well.

 

I see streaming continuing to grow. The power ranking of streaming options will likely shift and I plan to address that in upcoming posts. For the moment, the Wisdom of Crowds is helping streaming video options along very well.

 

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia @gmail.com or leave a message on the blog

Sunday, February 13, 2022

The Super Bowl and Sports Betting

 

As I write this, it is February 13, 2022 better know as Super Bowl Sunday. Similar to many of you, I checked in on You Tube this week and watched commercials for the upcoming Big Game. The result was a mixed bag with some real gems as usual.

 

What has gotten my attention is the forecast that nearly $8 billion will be wagered in sports books surrounding this one event. Doing a quick back of the envelope calculation, I realized that with approximately 330 million Americans, the $8 billion works out to roughly $25 wagered for each American man, woman, and child. Digging a bit deeper, I realized that the average bet had to be much higher as babies do not bet, neither do most children and importantly, most adults stand aside and do not wager at all although many will watch the game (Nielsen generally finds that 44-46% of households tune in at some point). I like to watch the game but also look at WHEN commercials run---if you only bought one 30 second spot for $6.4-7 million, you would like to be in the first quarter in case the game is a blowout. A major advertiser with several spots gets them spread across the game.

 

Back in May, 2018, after years of lawsuits and lusty lobbying, the Supreme Court lifted the Federal ban on sports betting. Since then, a majority of states have legalized it and California may soon join the fold as a referendum is on the November 2022 ballot to okay it in the Golden State.

 

According to AGA, some 79% of those polled want legalized sports betting in their home state—perhaps tax revenues are attractive to many respondents as only 13% of Americans are ACTIVE participants in sports betting.

 

At one time or another virtually all of you reading this have participated in a $5 pool at work regarding the Super Bowl or NCAA basketball tournament. Those were harmless diversions and fun in an office environment.

 

Today, there are hundreds of ways to bet the Super Bowl. My favorite was what color ---Green, Orange, or Yellow will the Gatorade be that is poured over the winning coach?

 

According to Statista, Football gets 77% of bets placed in the U.S, with Basketball (24%), Horse Racing (20%), Baseball (17%), and Soccer (9%). Sports bettors tend to be younger with 14% of 18-29 year olds and 22% of those 30-44 actively gamble on sports. Conversely,  only 7% of geezers such as I bet with regularity on sporting events.

 

Offshore betting is fading as more states legalize the activity. Should sports teams share in the profits? The majority of people say NO—the owners make enough money.

 

All my life I have had the somewhat libertarian belief that governments should not regulate too heavily, legislate morality or tell people how to live. This week the $8 billion figure hit me a bit hard. In recent years, a number of college students told me that they gambled weekly on the NFL. To a man (no women admitted to it and I never asked anyone), they all said something to the effect of “I can handle it.” It reminded of the kids I knew around high school age who started smoking with the disclaimer that “I only smoke a pack a week.” Several died of lung cancer in their 50’s or early 60’s.

 

The DraftKings and other commercials regarding betting applications were novel at first but then became annoying and I really did not like it when an announcer would discuss a point spread during a college football telecast. A few people told me this week that they were at live games and some of the crowd booed when the quarterback fell on the ball a few times to run out the clock. Yes, the home team would win but they did not try to beat the point spread. How twisted is that?

 

Prohibition was a failure and gave organized crime a powerful foothold in the U.S. My hope is that the wide expansion of sports betting in the U.S. will not lure people into betting more than they can afford to lose.

 

If you are reading this prior to kickoff, enjoy the game!

 

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may contact him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.