The Theory Of OTT Overpopulation
We’ve all heard the saying three’s a crowd. Well, how about over 100? That’s how many OTT channels exist today worldwide. With only over five years of standing to explain, OTTs have grown to compete with the big TV and theatre markets that have decades of experience in their pockets. But has the early fame immured them in an industry that’s becoming more claustrophobic by the day?
Get Hannah Abraham’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Back in the day, television was a device of luxury and harmony in the sense that there’d be one for every neighbourhood, all of whose residents would come together to watch as a community. Today, on account of technology’s largesse, we’re bestowed with more convenience that we need. Watch whatever you want, whenever you want, and on any device you want. OTTs are this generation’s escape and although they’re new, you can see that they’re palimpsest of technologies that came before.
The Supermarket Analogy
If you’ve been a resident on the internet for anything over a minute, you’d realize there’s a pattern here. When there’s development or movement on a certain subject it becomes a trend. A trend is a virtual bandwagon that people collectively jump onto. The OTT market, which was once just a battle between two big corporations, has now become a…well, what’s the most crowded place you’d step into willingly? Disneyland? We’re kidding! Let’s think of it as an emporium. There could be a new stall every time you walk in, selling their own kind of paraphernalia, but you generally tend to stick to your usuals. Well, that’s the OTT industry. There’s a new player coming in going “why not, it’s the next big thing”, while they try to sell their work or pastiches of work to the content-thirsty audience. Now as a customer, the problem with being propitiated by so many vendors is that they don’t know who to pledge allegiance to. This isn’t a sports brand or a club that one can be loyal to because each one comes up with original content that they aggressively market to the audience. The blinkered consumer just watches something and waits for the next.
The Big Bill
The obvious, glaring problem with having too many streaming channels is that eventually you’d be coerced into subscribing to at least two or more of them. Until recently, Sony Liv wasn’t one of the most talked-about channels in terms of their web series, but then they came out with Scam 1992 and all of a sudden saw a stampede of users coming in. At least in case of television, we’d have all the channels lined up and the option to view any of them, with one monthly bill. With OTTs and their originals hiding behind a paywall, people are having to subscribe and pay too many separate bills.
Acquisitions, Mergers and Deals
Another issue is one a customer has no control over, but it is also one where they’re directly affected. The deals that go on behind their screens. When Disney and Hotstar merged in India, the good part was access to some more content. But again, that comes at a cost. More precisely, the cost of a Disney+Hotstar Premium account which is Rs. 1100 more than the VIP one. Not long ago NBC started their own OTT channel called NBC Peacock, and then they decided they’re gonna pull all Office episodes from Netflix by the end of 2020. That means that the show will be available on Peacock, but Netflix subscribers won’t have access to it unless they subscribe to NBC’s channel. It was an execrable statement the two services had released especially since The Office is one of the most-watched shows of all time. And Peacock isn’t even available in India yet. Don’t worry though, the show is still available on Prime Video…for now. It’s one thing to dig for a show on a different channel or search for it on a content aggregator but it’s a whole different conundrum when the other service isn’t available in the country at all. As Indians, consumers were used to channels such as HBO, WB etc. on TV, but between the capitalist agenda of one conglomerate buying another on one hand, and the geographical firewalls standing guard on the other, the audience is missing out.
Pay Per View
Is this overpopulation frustrating the consumers? Yes, it definitely is. It’s even pushing people to go back to the bourgeois-friendly Torrents/Telegram. Understandably so, why would they invest in a fourth OTT service for one show, right?
So far, the Indian audience has been roughly categorised under two OTT business models. The urbanites prefer SVoD content with premium features and zero ads, whereas the more second and third-tier audience prefer the AVoD model. They’re willing to watch the ads as long as their content is being rolled out for free. However, TVoD content such as what Apple TV and YouTube provide hasn’t been popularised in the region yet. But after taking a look at this crowded market it seems like a missed opportunity. Unless the OTT channel’s key motive is complete customer retention, it seems like a good option to explore. Take Disney’s Mulan for example. They did their homework when they slapped that $30 fee on the movie. Even if 17% of their total subscriber base paid to watch it, they’d cover the production budget with $100 mn to spare. We think having an additional TVoD option would definitely benefit both parties in the OTT market, thereby circumventing the overpopulation problem.
Being born in the cloud, OTTs have skipped numerous levels that TVs had to trial run. While some TV channels are still hesitant about taking their media to the cloud, the OTTs are busy leveraging it. Despite that, it’s a fairly new arena. They haven’t reached their apotheosis yet, and they have a long way to go. The business models they’re using works well for now but it won’t be long before they start crystallising into something more refined and efficient. We’re intrigued to see the growth and the game-play in this field.
