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 4^th 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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.

 

 

 

 

Death of the Deep Dive

 

Over the years I heard many people requesting that I or my team take a really “deep dive” into a particular topic. Some really meant it and others seemed to be paying lip service to the concept.

 

I particularly loved it when someone gave me in depth sales data following a recent media campaign. Along with a team member or two, we would take a legitimate “deep dive” into the sales numbers. Very early in the game, I learned that very few products or services delivered per capita sales “flat” across the country. One big exception appeared to be Colgate toothpaste but most had pockets of strength and, at the same time, other Nielsen Designated Markets (DMA) that were quite weak relative to the national average of sales.

 

Variables appeared to be distribution, age or ethnicity of the market, wealth, and, of course, media delivery for our supported brand in the DMA. The more we learned, the more that we tried to customize an effort in each market which was often referred to as market-by-market planning.

 

It was a great deal of work at times. Yet, when we stuck with it, often we could “level the playing field” somewhat relative to a better financed or more well-known competitor. Once, senior management told me to back off. To paraphrase their marching orders, it went: “I know that you are doing the right thing but the hours you spend are not appreciated by the client. They do not even read many of your reports although they are happy that sales are trending upward in a weak market environment.” I continued to do it on my own during nights and weekends.

 

Today, with media buying services dominating conventional media execution, my dogged and time-consuming approach is gone with the wind. Also, it is difficult to isolate the impact of some mix of digital and conventional media although Big Data is telling us amazing things about our customer base for most brands and many services.

 

Some argue that Consumer Behavior will soon get weaker as a discipline as customer profiles provided by the amazing array of facts spun out by Big Data will largely eliminate the WHY people are buying you factor.

 

My friends, this is not a rant by an old man wishing for the good old days (that never were!). The concern that I have is that the mountain of information being provided needs a few astute analysts who will sift through the tonnage and make informed decisions.

 

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

 

 

The Importance of History

 

When I was a very young child, I became enamored with history—particularly American history. I think it all began on my fourth birthday, when my father gave me a child’s gift of statuettes of all the U.S. presidents. Soon, I could rattle off the names in order of all U.S. chief executives (if you think that I am boring now, can you imagine me then?).

 

A few years later, when I discovered sports, I would place the presidents in a T-formation with current president, Dwight Eisenhower, as quarterback. My father thought it was hilarious and told me that Ike Eisenhower was the second-string quarterback when he was a cadet at the United States Military Academy.

 

Trips to the Old North Church, Bunker Hill, Paul Revere’s house and the Statue of Liberty continued to whet my appetite for American History. All through my school years it was my best subject and my early major in college until I was seduced by Economics.

 

Even then, my two favorite classes ever were Economic History and History of Economic Thought. The latter remains an important part of my daily regimen 50 years later.

 

It has always surprised me that people have no interest in history. In business, people tell me who cares about what happened 20 years ago or even five? I want to know what is happening now, they say. My response is generally something along the time-honored lines of how can you understand the present without understanding how we have gotten there?

 

So here are some of my rules as to why history is important:

 

1)  It helps you understand change. Most things in the media world evolve; they are not revolutionary. So, if you look at the past decade or two, you will see how things have moved and have a handle as to where they might go. I once presented to my team a lengthy update on cable TV with a two-minute summary of how it started back in 1948. Shifting uncomfortably in her seat, a very strong negotiator blurted out “who cares about that. Even YOU were not born then.” Laughing, I stressed how the 120 second background sketch that I built would not hurt her and I proceeded. Yet, as talented as she was, she had no ability but to see right in front of her. The past and the future meant zero.

2)  Looking at history is inspiring. Just this morning, I discovered a new entry about how my first American ancestor came to Plymouth, Massachusetts approximately 10 years after the Mayflower dropped anchor. He was quite a character and I thought about what he had to overcome to get there and make his way in the new world. Study how entrepreneurs persisted and overcame one failure after another. You will find that there are very few overnight sensations in the world of commerce.

3)  Above all, when you study the history of your field you begin to see patterns. They are not all able to predict the future but as Mark Twain put it, “history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.”** As you get older, you often tell yourself “I have seen this movie before.” For me, it has been true of media, real estate, commodity, equity, and new product development arenas. Development follows patterns as do trends. This point is made wonderfully by hedge fund manager Ray Dalio is his new book, “Principles for Dealing with the New World Order, Why Nations Succeed and Fail” (Avid Reader Press, 2021). The book is a tour de force that takes you through several hundred years of economic history and global reserve currencies and makes some scary possible scenarios for the future. It is easy to read and really makes you think.

 

So, whatever you do, may I suggest that you embrace the history of your discipline. You may be surprised or you may be mortified but I doubt if you will be bored. And, it will likely help you get a handle on the future.

 

 

**I once used the Mark Twain quote to a group of university students. Most nodded but a student’s hand shot up and he said,  ”Who is Mark Twain?” That night a rare event occurred. I had a difficult time falling asleep as I worried about the future of our country.

 

 

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

Upton Sinclair Lives!

 

Upton Sinclair was a well-known writer in the first half of the 20th century. He was a bit on the angry side but did famous exposes such as THE JUNGLE which frightened America as he wrote of unsanitary conditions in the meat processing business.

 

He lived to be 90 passing on in 1968. While largely forgotten today, he is often quoted but not credited with a very profound statement. Sinclair ran for governor of California with a left leaning platform at the bottom of the Great Depression. He got clobbered at the ballot box and wrote a book about his experience as a candidate the following year.

 

The insightful comment that I referred to above came from that book and is: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on not understanding it.”

 

Let it sink in a little bit. Over the last 50 years, I have seen it come to life dozens of times.

 

Here are some examples:

 

1)  Way back in the late 1970’s, I was invited to speak at a TV station on the future of cable TV advertising. I burned the midnight oils putting a deck of acetates together (these were the pre-power-point days) and gave what I believed to be an even-handed discussion of where TV advertising both local and national was heading. The first five minutes went well, then the audience became restless and finally they were openly hostile when the Question and Answer period began. The General Manager walked out and a few of the sales team told me that I wanted them to lose their jobs. I stuck to my narrative but, being young, I was a bit shaken.

2)  Fast forward to the late 90’s and I had similar experiences with audiences across conventional media types when the Internet took center stage. “This is just a passing fad; it will never get traction” were among the responses I received. Once, in the year 2000, I had to speak to a newspaper industry group and was candid about what I thought was an inevitable decline in readership and advertising revenue. An old man (far younger than I am now ) yelled out, “My great-father started our paper in 1886 and my grand-daughter will be running it forty years from now.” I had the same type of experiences with radio station salespeople and magazine sales managers and publishers.

3)  Social Media the last 15 years—Sinclair’s quote held true as people dismissed it as a flash in the pan.

4)  Streaming video—Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus, Hulu Plus and others were getting traction but some dinosaurs told me that once the conventional networks put out some better programs people would flock back to them. I countered gently, I thought, that once people get used to not seeing commercials it will be difficult for them to return full bore to advertiser supported television. Also, it will be difficult to introduce new products due to heavy advertiser avoidance. Existing brands could do line extensions and have great credibility and a huge advantage over new brands that did not have very deep pockets. Advertising, as we know it, will slowly die and something else would take its place. Few were buying although most would admit that streaming services were their go-to viewing option.

 

Is this phenomenon limited simply to media? Of course not!

 

A few examples:

 

1)  I just finished reading TRILLIONS by Robin Wigglesworth (Penguin Random House, 2021).  The author is a long-time correspondent for The Financial Times. It took a seemingly dry topic, the growth of Index Funds, and talked of the huge resistance the financial establishment put up against them. How could a passive investing approach beat the performance of a fund that is professionally managed? Well, Jack Bogle of Vanguard who did not invent but certainly popularized the Index Fund concept showed again and again that, over time, excessive costs from standard mutual funds or financial advisors would eat up a fair portion of one’s profits. An Index Fund charges very little so the overwhelming majority of your gains are yours to keep. Bogle told people not to try and pick the next Apple or Amazon. Do not look for the needle in the haystack, buy the whole haystack and, over the long term, you will almost always outperform a money manager. Yes, there are people such as Warren Buffett, Stan Drukenmiller, and Bill Miller who defied the odds but they are in a tiny minority. Today, most of the big investment houses have embraced Index Funds despite their initial hostile welcome.

2)  Autonomous vehicles—mention self-drive trucks or Ubers to people and some get furious. It can never happen is their response. Well, I am betting that it will as businesses have one cardinal rule—cut costs! Over the next couple of decades when the artificial intelligence gets better and better it will be safer to have autonomous vehicles on the road. Insurance costs will drop and employers will not have to pay their truck health care costs, unemployment insurance, social security taxes, etc. Now, I realize that consumers always lag technology so it will be a while for driver free trucks to dominate things. At the same time, a 25 year old today cannot expect a 35 year career as a truck driver. Also, robotics will be even bigger players in manufacturing and even service industries.

 

A lot has changed since the mid-1930’s when Sinclair penned his famous line. One thing has not changed—human nature! So people, even intelligent and rational ones, do not want to accept anything that can threaten their livelihoods.

 

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

 

 

 

Moral Hazard Revisited?

 

When the financial crisis hit us hard in 2008, CNBC and Bloomberg pundits trotted out the term “Moral Hazard” on an all too frequent basis. Just what is Moral Hazard? During the Great Recession it was the first time that I had heard it since an Economic History class in 1971.

 

Simply put, Moral Hazard is when you have an economic set-up that does not penalize reckless market behavior. Some even say that it encourages it. Today, you often hear the term that some major banks are too big to fail. Smaller firms and financial houses are not so lucky. The big guys are often bailed out with taxpayer money and do not get punished for their mistakes.

 

So, in 2008, Lehman Brothers, was allowed to go bust but insurance giant AIG which had insured the majority of the infamous credit default swaps got bailed out. The banks who had foolishly gotten way over their heads on the swaps got funds and there were few consequences for their huge mistakes. More damningly, there seemed to be little effort or incentive for them to avoid such financial gaffes in the future.

 

So, if risky behavior works, the organization gets the profit. If highly speculative ventures blow up, the taxpayer is there to bail out the gamblers masquerading as financial titans. British financial writer John Lanchester described it as “the bad guys getting away with it.”

 

Why bring it up now? I am getting a bit edgy about some governmental action or possible future action that seems to reek of Moral Hazard.

 

Please do not misunderstand me. The Covid-19 epidemic is something that I hope is a once in a hundred-year event. And, so, I am not trashing Congress. They had to act quickly to avert disaster. Years from now, Monday morning quarterbacks and financial historians will write about what should have been done in 2020-21. 

 

I do think that the future can be fraught with moral hazard. What will happen when the next recession comes along? Let us assume that it is a mild or vanilla recession compared to the terrible blows of the Covid-19 downturn.

 

My guess is that millions of people will be clamoring for extended unemployment benefits, lengthy rent relief and debt accommodation that was built in to our 2020-21 national emergency. They will look for a bailout even though the difficulty is much milder than the current situation. Beyond individuals, watch for some large companies with their hands out, too.

 

Here is another one. Some progressive politicians are calling for a cancellation of all educational debt. When I first heard a few people discuss it, I was amazed. What about the millions of parents who took on a second job or a second mortgage to put their sons and daughters through college or graduate school and then paid it off? How about the students who worked throughout their college years and took six years to finish so they would not take on onerous debt? Is that fair to them?

 

A very erudite woman whom I know and is a self-proclaimed progressive hit me with a different angle. She has no problem with a proposal floating around to cancel the first $10,000 of student debt. She is strongly opposed to a total bailout, however.  Cancelling all debt, she stated, would subsidize the soon to be rich. A graduate of Yale Medical or Wharton Business School might have $200,000 in debt but could pay it off fairly swiftly once their careers took hold. Total debt forgiveness would be unfair in many ways.

 

My favorite example of someone who saw moral hazard and refused to play the game was John M. Nichols, a depression era banker. Nichols was president of the First National Bank but not of New York but rather Englewood, Illinois. Nichols was a rare bird and somewhat eccentric, I suppose. He did not believe in fractional reserve banking and was known as John M. (One Hundred Percent) Nichols. When the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was formed in 1934, Nichols refused to pay dues to the insurance fund. His attitude was that he was essentially being forced to subsidize his competition who were often unsound. Amazingly, Nichols was 100% solvent—he could meet all depositor claims at any time with cash or readily marketable securities. He left the banking business in Roosevelt’s 3^rd term and tore his bank building down. He called the FDIC “a damnable piece of political trickery.”

 

So moral hazard is not new but I fear it may raise its head again big time in the not too distant future. Will leaders have the courage to say NO at that time?

 

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