Is OTT Disrupting Television?: A Case Study On OTT's Impact On The Swedish Television Value Chain
Is OTT Disrupting Television?: A Case Study On OTT's Impact On The Swedish Television Value Chain
Is OTT Disrupting Television?: A Case Study On OTT's Impact On The Swedish Television Value Chain
Carl Waldenor
Master Thesis in Business & Economics
Marketing and Media Management (30 ECTS)
Abstract
This thesis uses value chain analysis to investigate the recent OTT (over-the-top) developments’
influences, consequences and strategic implications on the Swedish television value chain. The
purpose of this study is to provide a better understanding of the recent OTT developments in the
Swedish television industry, and thereby give industry actors (primarily broadcasters) a “road
map” to support strategic choices for future investments. A case study research design is used
and empirical data was collected from interviews with employees of Sweden’s largest
commercial TV company TV4-Gruppen. Several influences, consequences and strategic
implications for members of the entire television value chain are found and analyzed using
theories from three areas: value chains, disruptive innovation and strategy, and IT impact on
strategy. The main conclusions are focus around that the OTT development is substantially
different to other historical technological advancements in the television industry, in that it is
separated from traditional distribution infrastructure. It thus has a direct impact on the structure
of, and power in the television value chain, as it opens up for disruptive innovation in some parts
of it.
1
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 THE PROBLEM ..................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.1 Over-the-top (OTT) distribution.................................................................................................. 5
1.1.2 The television value chain ........................................................................................................... 6
1.1.3 Industry complications ................................................................................................................ 7
1.2 PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................................. 8
1.3 DELIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 8
1.4 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................... 9
1.5 DISPOSITION ........................................................................................................................................ 9
4. METHOD .............................................................................................................................................. 24
4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................................................ 24
4.1.1 Selection of interviewees ........................................................................................................... 26
4.1.2 Supporting documentation and information.............................................................................. 27
4.2 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 27
4.3 RESEARCH QUALITY ......................................................................................................................... 28
4.3.1 Credibility.................................................................................................................................. 28
4.3.2 Transferability ........................................................................................................................... 28
4.3.3 Dependability ............................................................................................................................ 29
4.3.4 Confirmability ........................................................................................................................... 29
2
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
6. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 50
6.1 CONTENT CREATION ......................................................................................................................... 50
6.2 CONTENT PACKAGING ...................................................................................................................... 52
6.3 CONTENT DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................................. 54
6.4 USER INTERFACE .............................................................................................................................. 56
7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 56
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 63
3
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
1. Introduction
The television industry has through the years undergone many technological changes. Betamax,
VHS and DVR are just some of the many technologies that have challenged its business models.
In addition, the ways to distribute linear television have been altered many times – moving from
analogue broadcasting, to cable, to satellite, to digital broadcasting, to IPTV. Through all of
these changes the television industry have stood tall. The talks of threats to the media industries’
traditional business models that have been around for almost 40 years have been shot down by
successful examples over and over again. However, this time the circumstances have changed
and television might be on the verge of an important transformation.
The internet has caused disruptive changes to many media industries in its rather short life time.
The music industry is one of the most commonly used examples. Classic distribution systems
were turned upside down, forcing some record labels to have to fundamentally rethink their
business models and many brick-and-mortar distributors to disappear. Another industry that has
been hit by disruption as a consequence of the internet is the newspaper business. Paper after
paper moved online in desperate moves to follow the changing consumer behaviors, while
forgetting to introduce proper business models that did not “change dollars for cents”. Recent
years have just in Sweden brought job cuts (e.g. SvD) and desperate efforts to increase ARPUs
online (e.g. Sydsvenskan).
The next industry to be disrupted by the force of the internet is by many said to be television
(Brode, 2012, p.1). And many signs point towards such a development. In the fall of 2012,
Swedish television viewers were suddenly bombarded by advertising messages announcing that
television, films and sports could now be watched online. Local actors like the TV4-Gruppen and
Viasat launched or relaunched video streaming services targeted directly at the consumers. New
players, national and international alike, did the same and in just a couple of months the viewers
could choose between brand new services like Netflix, Magine and HBO Nordic. All of these
services had one thing in common – they were all distributed over the internet. Any consumer
4
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
with an internet connection could now watch TV series, shows, films and sports online on their
computer, tablet, smartphone, game console or even – on their TV set. The expression “anytime,
anywhere” where at the heart of this development and could soon be seen “every time,
everywhere”.
This trend has had a major impact on the Swedish television industry. Actors from all over the
television value chain are now battling for the consumers’ wallets and moving from one business
model to the next. Everything is moving faster by each day that passes and the only constant in
the industry today is change. At the same time, no one seems to have a clue about what will
really happen to television as we know it. Is linear television about to die? What kind of
distribution will prevail? What kind of services? And maybe most importantly: Who will win
and who will lose in this transformation?
5
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
US), but “on top of” the existing infrastructure. Typically, a MSO delivers the internet
connection over a managed infrastructure (e.g. a cable network) while an OTT content provider
“bypasses the operator content offerings and runs over the broadband connection supplied by
that same operator” (TDG Research, 2011). The viewer simply logs in to a website on their
computer (or an app on their tablet, smartphone or Smart TV) in order to view their requested
video. Today, most Swedish television broadcasters offer all or part of their programs online
(through their so called ‘Play’ services) and actors like Netflix, HBO Nordic, Viaplay and
Filmnet have introduced platforms for films, TV series, shows and sports. Even operators like
Telia, Com hem and Canal Digital have made content available online through OTT services.
The growing consumer interest of OTT television will, according to several industry analysts,
give rise to a multi-billion dollar industry in just a few years. It has been suggested (Digital TV
Research, 2012) that “the over-the-top TV sector is on the brink of a huge takeoff as the key
players expand globally, companies consolidate and as new partnerships are announced on a
daily basis.” Even though some analysts does not believe that OTT television services may
explicitly replace traditional managed distribution in the typical 4-5 year forecast time horizon,
they do suggest that these services instead will have “a significant presence as secondary TV
services, […] complementing a traditional pay-tv services”. (Analysys Mason, 2012). Other
analysts suggest the opposite – that the rising online TV consumption and amount of video
content available online has the potential to dramatically alter the way how consumers subscribe
to TV services. According to KPMG research, in 2010 36% of respondents said that the reason
for the cancelling their home TV subscription was because they were “happy with video content
on the Internet”. In 2011 the respondents had almost doubled, to 61 % thus becoming the number
one reason for eliminating TV subscriptions (KPMG International, 2011).
6
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
e.g. sports associations sell broadcasting rights, television studios offer high-end drama
productions, and production companies commission rights to various television formats (or
simply act as production partners for such formats). The content packaging category is made up
of actors that purchase various television rights and packages them into branded “products” for
sale. Examples of these are traditional television broadcasters (e.g. Viasat Broadcasting or TV4-
Gruppen in Sweden) and newer streaming media/OTT service providers (e.g. Netflix or
Amazon). The content distributors are actors that provide a managed distribution infrastructure.
Cable or satellite operators, and MSOs make up this category. Before the finished “television
product” reach the end consumer (or “viewer”), s/he need a user interface to display it.
Traditionally this has of course been a classic television set, but in recent years CE companies
have also rolled out a wide array of devices that are capable of showing video.
7
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
In order to fulfill this purpose, I have chosen the following research questions (RQ) to be
answered in this thesis:
RQ1: How are the recent OTT developments influencing the Swedish television value
chain?
RQ2: What consequences will this influence have for the members of the television value
chain?
RQ3: What are the strategic implications for the value chain members, given these
consequences?
1.3 Delimitations
This thesis will be delimited to the Swedish television industry, with a starting point in the value
chain explained above. Similar technological developments and changes can be observed in
other media industries as well, but an examination of them all would result in a much too wide
research angle. The study is also geographically delimited to the Swedish market. The reason
behind this is that the thesis is done as a research assignment from a Swedish company. I will
however give mention to various global trends in this thesis, as well as give an account of
research done in other markets, as this will still be relevant for the developments in the Swedish
market. A further delimitation is that this thesis will take a broadcaster perspective when
examining and analyzing the above mentioned value chain influence. This is a consequence of
the nature of the research assignment that I have been given.
8
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
DVR; Digital Video Recorder. A consumer electronics device that records video in digital
format, usually to a built-in hard drive.
IPTV; Internet Protocol Television. A system through which television services are distributed
over the internet instead of e.g. terrestrial or satellite, but within a virtual managed infrastructure
controlled by the distributor.
OTT; Over-The-Top. Refers to the delivery of a specific service over the internet, but without a
multiple service operator involved in the control or the distribution of that service.
Smart TV; Television sets with integrated internet connections and often user interface software,
allowing the delivery of internet browsers, on-demand video services, games, etc. on the TV set.
1.5 Disposition
This study will from this point be structured as follows: First, chapter 2 presents the theoretical
framework that has been used to analyze the empirical findings in this study. Then, chapter 3
summarizes some relevant literature that has been written on this subject, or closely related
subjects. Chapter 4 describes the method used to obtain data and analyze it. Chapter 5 then
presents the empirical data by first describing the case company and then summarizing the
findings related to the research questions. In chapter 6 my empirical findings are analyzed, and in
chapter 7 conclusions of that analysis are presented and the research questions answered. Finally
9
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
in chapter 8, I conclude with a discussion on contribution, critical reflections and suggestions for
future research.
2. Theoretical framework
This section will present the theoretical perspectives to the research questions above. Three
theoretical areas will be covered – value chains, disruptive innovation and strategy and IT
impact on value chains – as I believe that these are the most relevant for the topic at hand.
The area of value chains have been chosen mainly because of its usefulness in industry and
strategy analysis, as have been suggested by many researchers (Loebbecke and Powell, 2002,
p.309) (Magretta in Allio and Fahey, 2012, p.5). It has also grown to become a quite popular tool
for marketers outside of the academic world, especially in the technology intensive television
business where new technology is constantly keeping the industry unpredictable. As such, I have
chosen to investigate this particular area, in favor of other approaches to industry analysis (such
as Normann and Ramirez’ “Value constellation” theory).
Major technological breakthroughs often give rise to disruptive innovations, which have the
power to overturn established business models or even entire industries. The internet can most
definitely be said to be such a technological breakthrough and in recent years, some have dubbed
the OTT developments in the television industry as a typical disruptive innovation (Wessel,
2012). As such, the theoretical area of disruptive innovation will be examined in this thesis. As I
believe that strategy will be key in an industry facing disruption, a closer look on strategy in
relation to technology has been chosen to complement it.
The final theoretical area that I have chosen to investigate further in this thesis is information
technology’s impact on the value chain. I believe this area can contribute to the understanding of
how and why the television value chain is affected by technology and disruptive innovation,
which thus should provide a solid theoretical foundation for analysis.
10
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
In his book, Porter further elaborated on his value chain model by explaining that each firm’s
value chain is a part of a larger industry stream of activities that he decided to term the value
system. Suppliers’ value chains upstream from the firm and customers’ value chains downstream
from it, together form this value system that essentially explains how a generic industry work.
11
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
Figure 3 illustrates Porter’s value system. A generic product moves from left to right in the value
system, from value chain to value chain, eventually ending up in the buyer’s value chain. Porter
further explained that “gaining and sustaining competitive advantage depends on understanding
not only a firm’s value chain but how the firm fits in the overall value system” (Porter, 1985,
p.34). As such, it is essential for firms to understand how the value system is constructed, and
any attempt to analyze how the industry function must take this perspective into consideration.
As an extension of the concept of strategic cost analysis, the authors John K. Shank and Vijay
Govindarajan applied Porter’s above explained ideas on value systems, into their research on
strategic cost management. In their 1992 article Strategic Cost Management: The Value Chain
Perspective they explained that strategic cost management needed a broad focus that is external
to the firm, which led them to use Porter’s value chain model. However, they decided to rename
12
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
Porter’s term value system by instead calling it value chain; “The "Value chain" for any firm in
any business is the linked set of value-creating activities all the way from basic raw material
sources through to the ultimate end-use product delivered into the final consumers' hands. This
focus is external to the firm, seeing each firm in the context of the overall chain of value-creating
activities of which it is very probably only a part” (Shank and Govindarajan, 1992, p.179). Even
though it may not be entirely attributable to only Shank and Govindarajan, this renaming
maneuver seems to have had quite an impact as today’s industry analysts often use the latter term
when trying to explain how an industry is constructed – rather than when analyzing competitive
advantage by examining firm activities. As Shank and Govindarajan provides useful insight into
how Porter’s value system can be used to analyze industry construction, which is also the
purpose of this thesis (rather than examining internal firm activities in order to analyze a firm’s
cost positions or sources of differentiation, as Porter’s definition of value chain is intended for), I
have decided to use the same expression in this thesis and will thus from this point on refer to
Porter’s value system with the term value chain.
Shank and Govindarajan suggested that an important aspect of the value chain is the
understanding that suppliers and customers are not merely parts of a simple supply chain, but
rather have an important impact on the strategic positioning of a firm. “Suppliers not only
produce and deliver inputs used in a firm's value activities, but they importantly influence the
firm's cost/differentiation position. […] Similarly, customer's actions can have a significant
impact on the firm's value activities” (ibid., p.180). As will be discussed below, understanding
the entire value creation system and not only a firms position within the value chain in which it
participates, have been shown to be quite relevant in the multimedia value chain in recent years.
And in a more general sense, successful creation of firm strategy is closely connected to this
issue, as “investment decisions can be viewed from the perspective of their impact on the overall
chain and the firm's position within it” (ibid., p.197).
13
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
In December 2012, Christensen teamed up with Maxwell Wessel to elaborate on the concept of
disruptive innovation in their article Surviving Disruption (Wessel and Christensen, 2012). Here
they call disruptive innovations “missiles launched at your business”, but simultaneously point
out that “disruption is less a single event than a process that plays out over time, sometimes
quickly and completely, but other times slowly and incompletely” (ibid., p.58). However, this
article is mainly focused on figuring out whether these missiles will hit a business dead on, or if
they will pass it unnoticed. To determine this, the authors present a simple framework to guide
managers. Firstly, incumbent companies need do three things:
14
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
To do the first, the authors introduce a concept they call the extendable core. This is “the aspect
of [the disrupter’s] business model that allow [it] to maintain its performance advantage as it
creeps upmarket in search of more and more customers”. Second, in order to figure out the own
relative advantages, management must understand “what jobs people want you to do for them –
and what jobs the disrupter could do better with its extendable core". Finally, defining what
barriers a disrupter will need to overcome to undermine the incumbent business in the future will
help it evaluate whether or not a disruption is imminent (ibid.).
The authors describe disruptive innovation as always stemming from an advantage in either
technology or a business model. What characterizes disruption however is that this advantage
can scale as the disrupter grows its customer base. This advantage is what enable the extendable
core, and provides a clear distinction between disruption and mere price competition. As a result,
the disrupter can keep its advantage while it improves performance and grows (ibid., p.58).
Identifying the disrupter’s extendable core is imperative in order to understand what customers it
can come to attract. Next, the incumbent business needs to analyze their own customers, and
estimate how many of them the disrupter might be able to attract. To do that, the authors explain
that “the jobs” that the customers use the company to do for them need to be analyzed. A
disrupter will always aim at doing these jobs more easily, conveniently, or affordable. The
effectiveness of the disrupter of doing these jobs will determine the most vulnerable segments of
the incumbent company’s core business, and also its biggest sustainable advantages. It is
however important to always remember that, to different degrees, disrupters will have
disadvantages. The combination of the effectiveness of performing the jobs asked by customers,
15
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
and the seriousness of these disadvantages will determine how swift and complete the industry
disruption will be. (ibid., p.60).
Finally, incumbent companies must determine what barriers the disrupter faces, before it can
dissolve the own current advantages. The authors believe that there are five such barriers to
disruption. From easiest to hardest to overcome, these are (ibid.):
According to the authors, whether or not the customers will remain with the incumbents is
dependent on how difficult the barrier is, or how many barriers the disrupter is facing.
Wessel and Christensen claim that this framework will help companies assess how severe the
disruption will be to their business and identify what needs to be done to overcome the threat,
should it be serious. On this note the authors point out that “overestimating a threat can be as
costly as ignoring it” (ibid., p.60).
16
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
essential than ever when it comes to industries that are seemingly becoming reshaped by the
forces of the internet. According to his line of reasoning, “[the internet] rarely nullifies the most
important sources of competitive advantage in an industry; in many cases it actually makes those
sources even more important” (Porter, 2001, p.78). He argues that “internet technology provides
better opportunities for companies to establish distinctive strategic positionings than did previous
generations of information technology” (ibid., p.64). However, he points out that the internet in
itself is not a competitive advantage in an environment where it is embraced by all of a
company’s competitors. All companies will eventually need to implement the internet in their
business practices to some extent, but the fact that they do can never set them apart from the
competition. Instead he claims that “established companies will be most successful when they
deploy Internet technology to reconfigure traditional activities or when they find new
combinations of Internet and traditional approaches” (ibid, p.78).
Porter’s earlier book Competitive Advantage, in which his ideas on value chains were introduced,
touched upon many of the ideas that he later elaborated on in this 2001 article. For example,
back in 1985 he pointed out the “the potential effect of technological change on industry
structure means that a firm cannot set technology strategy without considering the structural
impacts” (Porter, 1985, p.172). This idea was developed in 2001, but with much more detail. For
example, Porter thus believes that the internet can help established companies if the use of it is
well thought through: “the Internet tends to dampen the bargaining power of channels by
providing companies with new, more direct avenues to customers” (Porter, 2001, p.66).
Nevertheless, he does warn the reader about increased competition as a direct consequence of an
open technology like the internet. “By enabling new approaches to meeting needs and
performing functions, [Internet technology] creates new substitutes. Because it is an open
system, companies have more difficulty maintaining proprietary offerings, thus intensifying the
rivalry among competitors” (ibid.). Again, this points to his idea that strategy is more important
than ever. Looking at what has happened in other media industries where the internet have led to
serious disruptions, such as the newspaper business, this does seem to have bearing. However, he
also points out that “in many cases, the Internet complements, rather than cannibalizes,
17
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
companies’ traditional activities and ways of competing” (Porter, 2001, p.73). Whether this can
be said to have been true for the newspaper industry is hard to say, but it may hold for other
media industries.
Shrinking it
BUYERS SELLERS
Figure 4. The value chain shrinks: players move out (Mougayar 1998, p.89)
In Mougayar’s second scenario the value chain gets redefined. Instead of the old intermediates
simply getting disintermediated, “newer types of intermediaries arise in several new areas, and
become an integral part of the new value chain” (ibid.). Distribution costs are assumed to be
lower for these newer intermediaries, which is probably why they are replacing incumbents in
the first place. Mougayar explains that this kind of redefinition puts more pressure on managers
of buying and selling organizations, as understanding this development is key to realizing the
potential it provides. This kind of redefinition has been seen in many media value chains over the
last couple of years – i.e. in the music industry where newer intermediaries like Spotify have
18
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
replaced older brick-and-mortar alternatives like Tower Records with technology driven business
models. The scenario is depicted in Figure 5 below.
New Intermediaries
BUYERS SELLERS
Finally, in the third scenario Mougayar explains the value chain as having become “virtual”.
Here, “the behavior of the intermediaries is really unpredictable, and will be subject to dynamic
market forces” (ibid.). Some older intermediaries become disintermediated, others become
reconstructed. There is little control for buyers and sellers of what happens in between them,
especially for buyers, and “certain behaviors include a dynamic allocation of intermediaries,
based on the needs of buyers” (ibid., p.89-90). This scenario is depicted below.
Virtual Marketplace
BUYERS SELLERS
Figure 6. The value chain goes virtual: players are invisible and dynamic (ibid., p.90)
3. Literature review
As the technological changes in the television are happening at the very time that this thesis is
being written, there is not much academic literature on the subject yet. This is quite natural, as
19
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
such literature is often conceived when “the dust have settled” and there is enough evidence to
support analysis of the subject. There has however been some literature on the subject coming
from both the industry itself as well as from industry experts and investors. In this part of this
study, I will account for the most relevant work that has been done in the field of OTT
technology in the television industry. In addition to this, I will review some of the most well-
known industry literature as well as investigate some of what has been written on the impact of
disruptive technology on other media industries.
20
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
Internet video set-top-boxes (STBs) like AppleTV or Roku that are linked to content websites
such as iTunes or Netflix. In addition, popular TV sites like Boxee or Hulu have been launched
to address much of the same consumer behaviors. Together, the authors explain that these
occurrences is transforming Internet video into a “’lean back’ living room experience with a TV-
centric [user interface] and advanced remotes” (ibid., p.522). The authors also point out that the
infrastructure operators are taking notice of this development and are now competing with
content producers for direct access to the consumers. They forecast that traditional operators will
most likely change their business models to keep their customers.
21
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
OTT service companies like Netflix. Nevertheless, they “will also lose greater advertising fees if
viewers shift from live offerings to Netflix” (ibid.). Brode’s Netflix example demonstrates the
key point in his white paper. He claims that every change in content delivery (distribution) that is
happening right now, whether it in favor companies like Netflix or broadcaster’s own online
streaming services, results in a move to a less profitable model than the current one (ibid., p.46).
In 2009, Metin Taskin, the CTO of a supplyer of home networking and video solutions called
AirTies, wrote an article named “Can OTT TV win the day?” for the industry periodical
International Broadcast Engineer. In it, Taskin calls OTT TV a real threat to satellite and cable
operators who have made significant investments in IPTV infrastructure. He further claims that
there are significant concerns amongst telcos over the impact of OTT TV on their IPTV
investments. However, according to the author “the Internet TV revolution is still some way off
from taking over the remote TV control in our living room” (Taskin, 2009, p.25). He stresses that
any IPTV deployment – be it traditional or OTT – will need three essential conditions if it is to
succeed: compelling content, financial viability and technological feasibility. In order for content
providers to permit that their content is delivered in any such IPTV deployment, they will need
to be certain that the quality of the user experience will be high enough for their brand values to
not be negatively impacted. Taskin continues by arguing that “another challenge to overcome is
the need to partner with a service provider, be they cable, fibre or ADSL, to deliver the last mile
access to the home. This will require careful negotiation, as bandwidth availability is key to a
successful OTT deployment” (ibid. p.25-26). If these challenges are met however, Taskin argues
that any new or incumbent player could be the winner in this new TV world – as the
technological barriers are slowly being eroded.
22
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
particularly comfortable with the online environment) (The Economist, 2010), have grown
unaccustomed, or even unwilling, to pay for online news, which has had a serious consequences
for newspapers in their attempts move their businesses online. (Graham and Smart, 2010, p.196).
While this development could be said to have had a similar impact on the television industry, it’s
meaning more importantly highlights Shank and Govindarajan’s thoughts on how other value
chain actors (in this case customers) can have important impacts on the positioning of a firm, as
mentioned in section 2.1 above. This can thus be said to be an important aspect of media value
chains in the digital age.
In his white paper TV is Next described above, Gary Brode makes a comparison between the
television industry and the newspaper industry. He claims that the television business looks a lot
like the newspaper business did in the late 1990s – a couple of years before the industry
collapsed and met advertising revenue cuts of over 50 %. He argues that the newspaper business
did well when they were able to consolidate content. Consumers who bought newspapers did so
in order to read the articles that interested them, but ended up paying for all of the other sections
in the paper as well. This model was successful up until the internet made it possible for the
same consumers to just read the articles or blog postings that they were interested in online.
Content became disaggregated, and “the internet acted as a monopoly destroyer and enabled
readers with a different viewpoint to find their news elsewhere” (Brode, 2012, p.40-41). Brode
argues that there are obvious similarities between that old newspaper model that worked out so
well before the rise of the internet, and the model that cable and satellite companies (distributors)
utilize when they bundle hundreds of channels together and charge their customers $70-$100 a
month for that entire bundle. He suggests that “as more attractive and much less expensive online
offerings become available, cable customers are going to be less likely to pay for 500 channels
when they only watch 10 of them. This is not going to be a positive for affiliate fees” (ibid.,
p.41).
23
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
4. Method
In this part of the study, the methodology that has been used to when collecting and analyzing
data will be presented. First I describe the research design that has been employed, how
interviewees were selected and the supporting documents and information that was used. I then
explain how the data was analyzed and finally a few words on research quality are provided.
For partly the same reasons, quantitative research methods were discarded for this study. In
addition to the advantages of qualitative methods explained above, a quantitative research
method was not pursued because these often aim at quantifying data and, typically, applies some
sort of statistical analysis to that data (ibid.). According to Bryman and Bell (2007, p. 426)
quantitative research emphasizes on the “on relationships between variables. Changes over time
tend not to surface”. As an analysis of an industry value chain will not benefit much from such
static statistical analysis, and does not allow for a large number of representative respondents to
form a sample, a quantitative research method was deemed unsuitable for the purpose of this
thesis. With the above reasoning in mind, the approach to the relationship between theory and
research will in study be inductive rather than deductive.
24
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
As research design, I have chosen to do a case study in the Swedish television industry. I believe
that the case study is an appropriate choice for this thesis as case studies are the preferred
strategy when “a ´how´ or ´why´ question is being asked about a contemporary set of events over
which the investigator has little or no control” (Yin, 2009, p.13).
I have chosen to use a single case study. The reason behind this is mainly because of the fact that
company that this study is conducted for, TV4-Gruppen, is seeking to establish an internal view
on strategy relating to the recent OTT development in the industry. As such, this research will be
done over department borders within the company in order to generate a common internal view
on the industry value chain. From this viewpoint then, analysis on how OTT technology is
influencing the value chain, what consequences it will have on it, and what strategic implications
it can be said to have for the value chain members will be conducted. In addition to this, a
company assignment like this will be hard to conduct at competing firms or strategic partners
throughout the value chain.
Depth interviews were chosen as the primary source of data. Interviews allows for the researcher
to obtain rich, detailed answers (Bryman & Bell, 2007, p.474) “to uncover underlying
motivations, beliefs, attitudes and feelings on a topic” (Malhotra, 2009, p.185). This method
should thus prove useful for developing a deep understanding of the industry value chain, and the
influence of OTT technology.
When doing depth interviews, the researcher faces a choice regarding how structured the
interviews should be. Bryman and Bell (2007, p.474) presents two different approaches to
qualitative interviewing: unstructured and semi-structured interviewing. In the former approach,
the interviewer might just pose one simple question to the interviewee and then follow up on
points that seem interesting and worth consideration. Unstructured interviewing is thus quite
similar to a regular conversation. With semi-structured interviewing on the other hand, the
researcher have a list of topics that s/he wants covered in the interview. The interviewee does
however have “a great deal of leeway in how to reply” (ibid.), but the same kind of wording will
25
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
be used from interviewee to interviewee. All interviews in this study were semi-structured. The
reasons for this is that 1) unstructured interviews are a bit to time consuming and difficult to
handle for an inexperienced researcher, and 2) semi-structured interviewing is a safer choice
when it comes to ensuring that the research questions posed will be addressed.
As can be seen in table 1 below, a total of 7 interviews were conducted with senior management
executives, middle managers and other employees at the case company. Interviews with senior
management executives were intentionally carried out first, in order for the snowball sampling to
work best, and in order to gain strategic and overall knowledge before interviewing more
operational employees.
The length of the interviews ranged from approximately 40 minutes to 1 hour. All interviews
were carried out in Swedish and organized face-to-face at the interviewees’ offices. Interviews
were recorded in order to get interviewees’ answers correct and to ensure that focus remained on
the interviewee, and not on taking notes (Bryman & Bell, 2007, p.489). The interviews were then
transcribed and analyzed.
26
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
In addition to internal documents, I also attended a full-day industry seminar in Stockholm called
Spelplanen – om framtiden för TV on February 7th 2013. At this full-day seminar, national and
international TV industry representatives discussed the future of television and the OTT
development in the industry. This seminar provided me with background information and
inspired some of the questions to the interviewees.
27
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
interviews had been transcribed, which was based on similar citations used by the interviewees
(ibid., p.586). This resulted in an array of concepts that were common for all interviews. In order
to not lose the context of what was said in the individual interviews, a commonly critique to
coding, I then listened to parts of the audio recordings again and made some adjustments to the
transcripts were applicable. After this conceptualization had been done, I formed categories for
these concepts that I then used as a basis for analysis, in order to form my conclusions of my
research (ibid.).
4.3.1 Credibility
According to Bryman and Bell, the Credibility criterion aims at answering the question: how
believable are the findings? (ibid., p.43). One useful approach when assessing the credibility of
the research is so called respondent validation – i.e. having the interviewees confirm that the data
obtained is valid (ibid., p.411). This has been done with all interviews in this study. In addition,
internal documentation obtained from interviewees, as well as external opinions stated during
Spelplanen on January 3rd, were useful when assessing the credibility of the data.
4.3.2 Transferability
Transferability aims at answering the question: do the findings apply to other contexts? (ibid.,
p.439). This will always be an issue when conducting case studies. According to Yin (2009,
28
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
p.38) case studies cannot provide the researcher with “statistical generalization”, as a case is not
a “sampling unit” and in its nature do not entail a large respondent sample. Instead, the mode of
generalization in case studies is “analytical generalization” where a previously developed theory
is used as a backdrop for comparison with the empirical findings. Yin argues that analytical
generalization is what case study researchers should aim at in order to maintain what he refers to
as external validity (ibid.), which is directly comparable to transferability according to Bryman
and Bell (2007, p.43). This is precisely what is aimed at in this study, which is in line with its
inductive approach.
4.3.3 Dependability
Bryman and Bell defines Dependability as answering the question: are the findings likely to
apply at other times? (ibid. p.43). In other words, this criterion is about whether the research
operations would yield the same results if repeated by other researchers (Yin, 2009, p.40). In
order to ensure that, the researcher is advised to think about their research as an accountant that
knows that their calculations must be able of being audited. As such, I have in this Method
section done my best to describe how the research was conducted. Additionally, all interviews
were transcribed and the recordings saved.
4.3.4 Confirmability
Confirmability has to do with the degree to which the investigator has let his or her own values
to intrude in the research (Bryman & Bell, 2007, p.43). In order to minimize this and thus
increase the objectivity of the research, the interviews were transcribed and saved, which was
useful since I was able to go back and check that my personal assumptions did not intervene with
what was actually said by the interviewees.
29
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
5. Empirical findings
This part of the study is built on the interviews described above, and will be divided into two
parts. First, the case company TV4-Gruppen will be described, both in terms of the parts of its
history most relevant for the purpose of this thesis but also in regards to its present nature and
impact on the Swedish television industry. This description is provided in order to present the
reader with a deeper understanding of the case company and certain company events that will
sometimes be referred to in subsequent parts of the study. Second, findings from the interviews
related to the research questions of this study will be presented.
30
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
In 1995 the channel had grown to become the biggest channel in Sweden in terms of viewing, as
it surpassed SVT that same year. In 1997 TV4 got new two new owners, the Bonnier group and
Finnish Alma Media Oy. That same year TV4 introduced its first internet initiative, the website
TV4.se. The purpose was to extend the television broadcast experience on the internet and in one
year the website had grown to attract around 800 000 visits monthly. The same year as TV4.se
was launched, the Swedish government decided that digital terrestrial television (DTT) was to be
launched in Sweden. In 1999, TV4 thus started to broadcast digitally. Even though the growth of
digital television was slow in the beginning, this new technological shift meant the introduction
of several new channels in the terrestrial television network. Channels like TV3, Kanal 5 and
TV8 were launched and this marked the beginning of the rise of new channels becoming
available for Swedish television viewers. Unlike the SVT channels and TV4, these new channels
were encrypted and the viewer needed a subscription and a set-top-box from the state controlled
company Boxer TV Access that was the sole provider of subscriptions for digital terrestrial
television. The digital distribution network (“digitala marknätet”) was controlled by Boxer’s
owner Teracom. Around this time it is also decided that the old analogue terrestrial television
network is to be shut down in Sweden starting in 2005 and because of these developments in the
television industry, the management of TV4 thus starts to plan for what will become the biggest
evolution in the company till then. The answer to the predicted fragmented viewing in television
is the introduction of several new channels by the company, the first one being the “interactive”
channel called Med i tv launched in 2002. The following year a second channel, called TV4 Plus,
is launched and in 2004 TV4 Film is introduced. As the analogue terrestrial television networks
commences its shut down in 2005, Med i tv changed name to TV400 and the documentary
focused channel TV4 Fakta is introduced. Over the coming years, several new channels were
introduced by the company.
At the same time as the company introduced its new channels, it also increased its presence on
the internet. In 2000 the company bought the web portal alltomstockholm.se, which it later sold
to Aftonbladet in 2005. In 2007 the company launched four new websites; recept.nu,
fotbollskanalen.se, tvplaneten.se and the WWF collaboration website Klimatsmart. The
31
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
following year the news site Nyhetskanalen.se was introduced and the company now operated
five websites on which it sold advertising.
Alongside its increased focus on the internet in 2007, a few key organizational changes were
made that and the following years. Bonnier became the sole owner of TV4 in 2007 and the
company was delisted from the stock exchange. In 2008, the company made its largest
investment to date when it purchased the premium pay channels under the brand Canal+ (later
renamed to CMore in 2012). The company group was subsequently renamed TV4-Gruppen (The
TV4 Group).
A key event in TV4-Gruppen’s digital history was the introduction of its online video on demand
service TV4 Anytime in 2006, a collaboration with Svensk Filmindustri (SF). The website
offered both free programming and a paid subscription (49 SEK per month) directly to the
viewers on the internet. In 2009 the service was complemented by the new platform TV4 Play.
This website was designed as a “catch up” service were all of TV4-Gruppen’s programming
(excluding Canal+) from the last week was available for free directly to the viewers. Older
programming was available via subscription on TV4 Anytime. In 2010 TV4-Gruppen became
one of the first broadcasters to broadcast television live in mobile phones, through TV4-Play.
Also in 2010, a HD version of TV4 is launched via DTT. Also Canal+ is granted two licenses for
broadcasting terrestrially and thus introduced two DTT channels. That same year, the Norwegian
telecom company Telenor purchased 35 % of the shares in C More Entertainment, the company
operating the Canal+ channels.
In 2011 TV4 Play Premium, an extension of the TV4 Play platform, replaced TV4 Anytime and
all web-TV from TV4-Gruppen was thus consolidated to one web service. The following year,
TV4-Gruppen made all of its linear channels (except Canal+) available live on TV4 Play
Premium. That same year, Canal+ changed name to C More and launched a subscription video
32
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
on demand service called Filmnet.se. Also three new channels were launched by TV4-Gruppen
in 2012 – TV4 News, TV4 Sport Xtra and TV4 Fakta XL.
33
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
Free-TV consists of TV4, the largest commercial television channel in Sweden. TV4 is still a so
called Free-to-air (FTA) channel, meaning that it is broadcasted without encryption and can thus
be received for free by any viewer with an antenna and a DTT box (connected to or built in to the
TV set). TV4 is exclusively advertising funded.
Mini-pay refers to TV4-Gruppen’s 11 channels that carry advertising and require a small
subscription fee to receive. These channels are distributed differently depending on the channel,
with some available in the DTT network and some not. TV4 receives fees from these channels
from distributors that sell them in different packages to the end customer. These fees are
dependent on how many subscribers the channels have.
As a requirement for the terrestrial license that was granted TV4 in 1991, the company
established a network of several Local TV stations. Even though that requirement became
obsolete in 2005, when the license to broadcast over the then shut down analogue terrestrial
network, the company decided to continue its local TV venture. Today TV4-Gruppen runs 25
different local TV stations that broadcast local news on a daily basis. Local TV is also a separate
business for the company as it offers advertisers to reach 30 different local markets with their
advertising in TV4 and Sjuan.
34
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
video on demand services covering linear channels (C More Play), subscription video on
demand/SVOD (Filmnet) and live sports (C Sports).
Finally, the Digital Media business area primarily runs TV4-Gruppen’s online businesses. Over
the last couple of years, these online businesses have been optimized to only include four major
OTT services and websites. The primary OTT service is TV4 Play that provide users with TV4-
Gruppen’s entire offering (except C More) of television content – online and on mobile
platforms. TV4 Play is a Freemium concept with one ad funded open part that is free for the
viewers. This is a “catch-up” service that offers full episodes from the last 7 days, as well as a
vast amount of clips from the company’s programming. The other part of TV4 Play is the
subscription service TV4 Play Premium that offers TV4-Gruppen’s entire catalogue of online
content with better image and sound quality, and no advertising breaks. Since the fall of 2012,
TV4 Play Premium also offers TV4-Gruppen’s 11 linear (“live”) Free-to-air and mini-pay
channels. TV4 Play Premium is offered at 99 SEK/month to its users. Besides TV4 Play, Digital
Media also runs 3 separate websites. TV4.se is the online extension of all of TV4-Gruppen’s
linear programming and offers additional information about and clips from the different
programs. Fotbollskanalen.se is a football site with news and analysis about global football. It is
also the place for football related clips and live events, and the home to many blogs of the
company’s football journalists. Recept.nu is Sweden’s largest website for recipes and an
extension of TV4-Gruppen’s food related programs.
35
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
36
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
happening”. However, it soon becomes clear that the developments have indeed had many
different kinds of influence on TV4-Gruppen.
First off, the relationships on the supplier side, with content creator, have changed to a certain
degree – mostly with regards to competition and prices. Mr. Malte Andreasson, Head of
Planning and Development, clarifies: “It has had an influence as there is now new competitors on
the buying side, for program acquisitions”. Mr. David Österlund explains further: “The rights
owners are pretty happy over the fact that there are now more actors that want to buy
programming rights, instead of just one big actor. Or really, its more like that incumbent buyers
want to buy more rights because they feel pressed and we have thus seen a price spiral”.
Second, TV4-Gruppen has seen an important influence of OTT on the relationships with
distributors. As Mr. Österlund states: “Existing gatekeepers demand and want new rights. They
want to be able to distribute the content on other platforms than today’s traditional TV sets, in
order to meet the customer needs themselves and be able to keep their old business”. He further
explains that this is due to the increased competition on the distributor side, which has been most
notable in the entrance of Netflix, but also local actors like Viaplay, SF Anytime and Voddler.
Mr. Andreasson adds that “in our negotiations with distributors we have seen an influence. More
distributors want to add OTT as a standard in the distribution agreements, and in general we have
gone along with that. […] The past year I don’t think we have written any new distribution
agreements in which OTT is not included in any way”.
When it comes to increased viewership on TV4-Gruppen’s own OTT platform, TV4 Play, the
developments have of course been positive. This is a rather new business for the company as Mr.
Casten Almqvist, explains: “[The OTT development] have invited us into growth areas that we
haven’t been on earlier. The most present example is that the viewing behaviors that historically
have been about video rentals, DVD-boxes and that type of viewing is now moving into a new
OTT-world. If we can capture that behavior, then it’s a whole new market for us”. Ms. Beck-
Friis is also enthusiastic about the developments on the consumption side: “Right now we are on
37
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
a market where the interest and consumption of moving pictures is increasing, which of course is
really exciting for us as an actor in that market. New actors that are acting ‘from a blank slate’
force you to think. It’s great with competition from that perspective.” She is especially interested
in seeing what happens with the evening papers’ TV ventures: “They have, like many others,
identified TV as a growth medium”. This is quite interesting in a time when pundits regularly
declare television as dead according to Mr. Tommy Jarnemark: “About 3 years ago there were
lots of discussions about the death of television. Here, we have always asked ourselves what it is
that is about to die. People still want to be entertained.”
The lower entry barriers have of course had impacts for all content packagers in the value chain,
according to all interviewees, most notably on the positive side with regards to online
consumption. But this also means new demands. Malte Andreasson explains: “It has meant new
demands in terms of being able to offer more and more material OTT”.
Regarding classic linear viewing, that in the industry is called PUT-level (“People Using
Television”) (MMS, 2013) there is yet to be any major influences from the OTT development.
As Mr. Kleberg stated, there is a form of inertia also when it comes to viewership, and no real
cannibalization have been seen. Or as he clarifies: “Right now the consumption is
complementary rather than substitutionary”. Mr. Andreas Wiss explains it further: “When it
comes to linear viewing, it is stable at the same level as earlier. In 2009 we saw some sort of
38
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
peak at 191 minutes of viewing per day and after that it has been fluctuating between 184 and
189 minutes. What is worth noting however is that in the target group 15-24 year olds, there has
been a constant decline in the average viewing the last couple of years. The target group 25-34
has also declined a bit, but not as much, just with some percentage point per year. Right above
that age group there are no real deviations, except for a slight increase in older target groups.
However, in the oldest target group of all we can see a substantial increase – for example a 6 %
increase in Q1 2013. So there is a form of discrepancy between older and younger target
groups.” Mr. Almqvist summarizes the development over the long term: “This [OTT]
development have been going on for a while now, and so far it has not cannibalized on the
regular viewership. On the contrary we have seen a steady growth in that viewing over the past
15 years, with some dips here and there.”
39
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
main revenue source that they are not ‘noticing’ that part of their business is sliding away
elsewhere”.
Many of the interviewees identify the end users as the big winners, as a consequence of the OTT
development in the value chain. Mr. Österlund makes this conclusion because of the increased
availability of content, the better ways to consume that content, and the increase in freedom and
choice. Mr. Wiss agrees and point out another influence on the end user side, as a result of the
OTT development: “Just this past year, it has happened enormously much for the end user. […]
2012 was a very eventful year in the TV industry, as that was the first time that the end user
could get a full-fledged TV experience over the internet – that was because of Magine’s
40
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
introduction, TV4s launch of linear channels on TV4 Play and that SVT later did the same. […]
An interesting aspect of that is that the piracy is decreasing now, because there are legal
alternatives”.
41
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
Mr. Kleberg compares the situation that the film companies are in, to when the music industry
was disrupted by the internet: “The music industry faced a pretty quick drop in sales of physical
CDs driven primarily by piracy, but a rather slow uptake of digital alternatives. When it comes to
moving pictures, the drop of physical DVDs and the like will probably be just as fast as with
CDs – but the digital alternatives will pop up earlier. As such, the content creators probably
won’t get that temporary dip that the music industry got”.
On the supplier side, David Österlund explains that rights to distribute the content OTT, so called
TV Everywhere (TVE) rights have started to become a commodity. “It’s not as difficult as before
42
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
for our program acquisitions department to complement their agreements with live streaming
rights. There still is a price premium however”.
When it comes to negotiations with the distributors, Malte Andreasson argues that there have
been positive consequences of the OTT developments: “We have been able to charge pretty good
prices for the rights to distribute our channels OTT, given the expectations. […] It haven’t
become a significant source of revenue yet, but the agreements look pretty good with a 50 %
add-on and above”. At the same time, David Österlund points out that the agreement negotiations
have become more complex due to the OTT developments: “All negotiations with distributors
right now are about them trying to ensure that they won’t get a worse product than the one we
offer ourselves on TV4 Play. […] That’s their worst nightmare, that we are to keep exclusive
content that they can’t offer themselves”.
Ms. Cecilia Beck-Friis argue that with OTT, content packagers that themselves have initiated
end user ventures have the possibility to capture another form of viewing – a new form: “We
have seen that prime time for on demand services are later in the evening than with classic linear
television. Users bring the tablet to bed to watch, and thus extend the television night. Also,
43
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
when they are on the move, at the country house or travelling, OTT have enabled another way to
watch TV”.
With the OTT developments, huge amounts of data are transferred over the open internet. Mr.
Österlund explains how this has become a problem for the distributors: “In most cases, it’s the
television distributors that also supply the internet connection. So actors like Netflix for instance
are using the distributor’s infrastructure to deliver their competing services. That’s where the
question of net neutrality comes in. Should all data be treated the same? The distributors have
started to look for models where they can charge fees for what is distributed over the internet. On
the mobile side, there has been a shift from flat fees to specific tariffs for different amounts of
data used. That’s a way to hinder the OTT actors, and it could very well become reality for wired
internet connections too”.
44
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
According to Mr. Wiss, the end user is the winner in this OTT development: “It’s a classic thing
to say that the end user is the winner. That’s because the supply is increasing and so are their
options and choices.” Ms. Beck-Friis is not so sure though: “A lot of people nowadays says that
the consumer’s situation is so good right now because they have so many options. But I don’t
think the consumer only wants more options and choices. That makes it more difficult for them.
How are they to know what they can watch, how much they should pay and what the difference
is between alternatives?”. Mr. Jarnemark agrees: “It would be rather cumbersome if the every
TV night started with just a search field”.
45
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
1
In this section the end user perspective is not included. The reason for this is the lack of relevance for that link in
the value chain in this context, as strategic implications are more focused on industrial value chain actors like
content creators, packagers, distributers and user interfaces.
46
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
Mr. Johan Kleberg believes that movements in the value chain are getting more important: “You
have to have the courage to decide what part of the value chain you want, and then try to become
as strong in it as possible. In my opinion, content packaging is too small. In C More’s
perspective, I would rather be active further back in the value chain in order to get better control
over content rights. TV4 could move forward as they have a stronger consumer brand. I believe
that movements are important, but it’s hard to say exactly how to move”. Mr. Jarnemark is of a
similar opinion, which also relates to Mr. Almqvists thoughts on cannibalization: “My view is
that the more actors there are that want a slice of the cake, and the further away you are from that
cake, the less you will get. Likewise, the closer you are the more you will get. If you as a
broadcaster have the opportunity to get the consumer relationship, I believe that you have to take
47
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
it. Because if we don’t, someone else will – and that someone else might be even further back in
the value chain.” Ms. Beck-Friis believe that broadcasters, and TV4-Gruppen in particular, have
an advantage in comparison with the distributors as they continue to develop their end user
relationships: “We have a ‘relationship brand’ in a sense. TV engages viewers. That’s a big
strength to bring in to this technology shift. We need to be proactive and work with that”.
Another important strategic implication for broadcasters that have been identified by several of
the interviewees has to do with content. Mr. Wiss explains the background: “End users consume
different content with different services. For instance, on Netflix the consumption is a lot about
TV series while for broadcasters it’s more live content, broader entertainment, sports and the
kind of content that aren’t really on these new OTT services”. Mr. Almqvist agrees. He explains
what he believes broadcasters like TV4 should focus on: “Local TV content. Swedish programs
like Solsidan, Let’s Dance and Så Mycket Bättre. We are better than them on that kind of
programs. […] We know how much we spend on Swedish productions. […] I find it hard to
believe that an international actor like Netflix would want to invest that much in just the Swedish
language area. I truly believe that if we continue to invest in that kind of content, we will
continue to be market leaders”. Ms. Beck-Friis is of a similar opinion, but puts it in another way:
“If for instance Netflix were to invest in the kind of programming that is our core competence,
and stubbornly go into local productions on each geographical market – then they are taking
quite a big step into our core”. Mr. Wiss however believes that there is another kind of actor that
are a closer threat on the content side: “The evening papers’ are with their TV ventures moving
more towards event TV and live broadcasts, but in a new way. […] But their TV business is
bleeding money right now”.
48
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
Beck-Friis also believe that the distributors have to look over their customer offerings: “They
need to really put a lot of effort into creating end user value in order to continue to be relevant”.
Mr. Kleberg is of the same opinion: “A good example is the US. The distributors there are now
starting to wake up, and are looking to combine their offers with other services. Comcast teamed
up with the telecom operator Verizon to offer their OTT platform Xfinity wirelessly outside of
their cable infrastructure, Dish did something similar by buying Blockbuster. They are nervous
about their control of the households and have come to the conclusion that TV is not enough.
Dish’s attempt to acquire Sprint is also interesting. They feel that they need to offer more of a
total product offering in order to build up some kind of walled gardens again.” Mr. Kleberg also
notes that it has been a very slow development, and that there are indications that the
development in the Nordic markets will be just as slow: “That means that there will probably be
time for a lot of new services that are not controlled by the distributors”.
Malte Andreasson is of a similar opinion, and paints a picture of what he believes will happen in
the part of the value chain between Content Packaging and the End User: “If we look at the long
run, I believe we are going to see a situation where the infrastructure of technical delivery will
become rather worthless. There are so many ways in to the households now and the end user has
a connection to them all. That means that the ownership of infrastructure will become less and
less interesting. It’s going to be a bit like with the cellular networks – just a basic service that the
phone companies don’t even care about operating. When 4G networks transform into 5G, I think
that we instead will see a situation where it’s all about selling services – access packages to
consumers – and then the structure in that part of the value chain will be facing a revolution.
Com hem will start competing with Boxer and Canal Digital directly. It will be a zone of
structural change”.
49
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
emerge also – for instance Amazon has an OTT set-top-box in the pipeline”. Cecilia Beck-Friis
believe that the User Interface link in the value chain is going to be really important: “It’s getting
more and more relevant to make your content available everywhere, in an attractive way”.
Tommy Jarnemark explains the importance of new technical platforms: “40 per cent of all started
streams on TV4 Play is on mobile platforms. […] We view the cell phone as the new set-top-
box. It’s personal and almost everything you do starts with your phone today”. Also David
Österlund is convinced of the importance of new platforms: “Beside content, the end user
product is an important source of competition. Netflix have hundreds of developers that work on
bringing their service to all kinds of devices. It’s strategically important to be on all platforms”.
6. Analysis
From my empirical findings, much can be concluded about the impact, consequences and
strategic implications for the actors in the Swedish television value chain. In line with the
purpose of this thesis – to provide a better understanding of the recent OTT developments in the
Swedish television industry, the possible consequences and implications of this development,
and thereby give industry actors (primarily broadcasters) a “road map” to support strategic
choices for future investments – I will in this section present some of the most important
influences, consequences and strategic implications and connect them the relevant literature
presented in earlier sections of this study. They will be presented in the same way as the
empirical findings, with a value chain division. However, I have chosen to exclude End Users
from this presentation, as strategic implications aren’t applicable to that link in the value chain.
50
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
and many of the interviewees conclude that content creators have a very good position in the
value chain at the moment. A natural consequence has been that the number of actors on this
market has increased recently (Almqvist) which has led to tougher competition.
Strategic implications for the content creators is mainly about choosing what part of the value
chain they should act in, and thus who their customer should be. The increased competition on
the market has lead many players to try to find the best business model to use. Right now, they
are choosing different paths to go down (Österlund); some are for instance experimenting with
building end user relationships, others are focusing on business as usual (Beck-Friis) and some
have started to adapt to their present customers’ OTT needs (Wiss). According to Shank and
Govindarajan, “suppliers not only produce and deliver inputs used in a firm's value activities, but
they importantly influence the firm's cost/differentiation position” (Shank and Govindarajan,
1992, p.180). With the booming content market in mind, their view becomes increasingly
relevant for content creators. Malte Andreasson is of the opinion that content creators should
focus on being able to deliver superior quality in their production, and perhaps he is on the right
track. As the competition increases further down the value chain as well, unique content could
very well become an imperative asset for the content creators’ industrial customers (Jarnemark).
It could come to determine how strong of a position content packagers and distributors alike will
be able to build. This suggests that in order to beat the competition in this part of the value chain,
content creators should focus on their content instead of trying out end user relationships. As
Porter puts it, “gaining and sustaining competitive advantage depends on understanding not only
a firm’s value chain but how the firm fits in the overall value system” (Porter, 1985, p.34).
For the actors that already offer end user products through DVD and Blueray sales (mostly film
companies) the message is mainly the same: stay on course. The OTT developments have
opened up digital alternatives for movie resellers to replace physical sales, and the uptake with
these seem to work well (Kleberg).
51
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
However, there are other aspects of OTT. An important impact for content packagers is that there
has been a steep increase in demand for moving pictures online (Beck-Friis). This development,
together with the lower entry barriers due to decreased investment needs (Kleberg) have lead
many broadcasters to engage in end user relationships with own OTT services. With these, they
have been able to capture a new form of viewing – like for instance on-the-move consumption,
late night viewing and DVD-box consumption (Beck-Friis, Almqvist). At the moment, this is a
complementary kind of consumption to the regular broadcast viewing (Kleberg, Wiss) which
thus represents new added opportunities for these actors (Almqvist). Porter’s thoughts on online
52
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
services supports that finding; “in many cases, the Internet complements, rather than
cannibalizes, companies’ traditional activities and ways of competing” (Porter, 2001, p.73). But
broadcasters like TV4-Gruppen are preparing for a substitutionary effect from these new OTT
services. Strategically, that means challenging the old business model by letting new ones
cannibalize on it (Almqvist, Jarnemark). Distribution of linear channels on TV4 Play Premium is
a good example of this, and a service that might develop into a disruptive innovation, as in this
case the “jobs” that the viewers want TV4-Gruppen to do for them can be done OTT as well.
However, today that kind of service is not really a full-fledged TV service (Wiss), which means
that it isn’t fully challenging the distributors’ or TV4-Gruppen’s core businesses. In order to do
so, the broadcasters’ OTT services would need to also carry other TV channels, which would
mean a real step forward in the value chain. According to Porter, an initiative like that have the
potential to succeed, as he believes that “established companies will be most successful when
they deploy Internet technology to reconfigure traditional activities or when they find new
combinations of Internet and traditional approaches” (Porter, 2001, p.78). Such a service, like the
one that e.g. Magine (a new OTT TV distributor) offers today, have better potential to be
disruptive than for instance Netflix. However, as Wessel and Christensen describes, there are
barriers to disruption that needs to be overcome (Wessel and Christensen, 2012, p.60). The most
relevant in this case is probably the ecosystem barrier that today mainly is represented by
distributor infrastructure, which influences an overwhelming majority of the television viewing
today (e.g. cable or terrestrial networks). This is an integral part of the business environment in
the industry today, which complicates things for actors with ambitions to offer a full-fledged
OTT TV service. However, as more development is done on the technological delivery side (e.g.
the possible emergence of mobile 5G networks2) the ecosystem barrier could be lowered, as
Malte Andreasson believes. This would open up the market for disruptive services which would
have a serious impact on content distribution, and would thus result in the kind of redefinition of
the value chain that Mougayar have theorized can happen when distribution costs are lowered for
2
Samsung has recently had breakthroughs in 5G technology development.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/12/samsung-to-launch-5g-by-2020-hits-speeds-of-1gbps-in-tests/
53
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
new intermediaries: “newer types of intermediaries arise in […] new areas, and become an
integral part of the new value chain” (Mougayar, 1998, p.89).
The increase in consumption online, and the lower entry barriers in the industry have also lead to
increased competition (Wiss) in the OTT space. One strategic implication of this development is
that movements in the value chain are becoming more relevant for incumbents content packagers
(Kleberg, Jarnemark). Whether to move up or down the value chain depends on what kind of
position you are in and what kind of brand that you have towards end users (Kleberg, Beck-
Friis). An underlying reason for this finding could have to do with what characterizes a
disruptive innovation. According to Wessel and Christiansen, that defines disruptive innovations
are not necessarily that they need to be better than the existing products and services, but that
they are more convenient, simpler and less expensive than the existing offerings. An example of
a value chain movement is broadcasters’ OTT services that include linear channels – like TV4
Play Premium and SVT Play. These have the ability to fulfill all of those three criteria, if they
were to be complemented with other TV channels. Such a service would be convenient (no
infrastructure driven “walled gardens” for the end user to care about or adapt to), simpler (no set-
top-box requirements to connect to a “walled garden”, and availability no matter what distributor
infrastructure you happen to be connected to) and probably less expensive (as no infrastructure
investments or operations are required by the broadcasters). In light of this, content packagers
have a great opportunity to take leaps forward in the value chain – if they have the courage to
challenge their core business.
54
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
forced to it (Wiss). This is because the main impact on distributors that have been identified in
this thesis, namely that distributors are now seeing a risk in that other actors can distribute ‘past
them’ with online TV services (Österlund). Netflix, HBO, Youtube, Magine, as well as
broadcasters’ and evening papers’ OTT services are just some examples of actors that are trying
it out already, while the distributors have been slow to act on this development (Kleberg,
Andreasson). This is a sign that some of these services might be disruptive in regards to the
content distributors. Christensen and Raynor describe disruptive innovations as being
characterized by their ability to paralyze incumbent market-leaders, as they are often accustomed
to a more traditional approach to innovation. (Christensen and Raynor, 2003, p.34). As a result,
the cord cutting phenomena (end users cancelling or downgrading their TV subscriptions in
favor of online streaming) can be witnessed in both the US and Sweden right now, though not to
a very large extent yet (Wiss). The reason why some viewers are behaving this way is because
the infrastructure that up until today have represented a competitive advantage for the
distributors, is losing its relevance (Kleberg, Andreasson). There are already today several ways
for the end user to receive television at their homes – not only through a managed infrastructure
controlled by the content distributor. The “walled gardens” that they have been able to build up
with this infrastructure are starting to disappear (Kleberg). This is a natural development
according to Porter, as he claims that “the Internet tends to dampen the bargaining power of
channels by providing companies with new, more direct avenues to customers” (Porter, 2001,
p.66). The main strategic implication of this development is that distributors now have to rethink
their business models, in order to stay relevant to the consumers (Österlund). When doing so,
applying a value chain perspective is helpful according to Shank and Govindarajan: “investment
decisions can be viewed from the perspective of their impact on the overall chain and the firm's
position within it” (Shank and Govindarajan, 1992, p.197). That distributors are now doing so
has been most visible in the US, where they are looking to broaden their customer offerings by
acquiring or cooperating with service providers, primarily on the wireless network side. They
have come to the conclusion that television is not enough, and are now looking to provide more
of a total product offering in order to build up some kind of “walled gardens” again.
55
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
Apart from poor software (Wiss), there could be another fundamental problem with the
consumer electronic initiatives on this market. With traditional television, broadcasters did not
have to adapt their product much in order for it to function properly in the user interface part of
the value chain. The technology was build in order to receive the broadcasted signals. Today,
consumer electronics companies, like TV or game console manufacturers, are creating individual
market places for other actors to build their services upon – and have thus reversed that process.
This places higher demands on the OTT actors, as they will have to adapt their user interfaces to
each individual platform. Applying Wessel and Christiansen’s disruptive technology framework,
this problem could be categorized as a technology-implementation barrier, hindering the
potentially disruptive innovation to attacking incumbent companies’ competitive advantages
(Wessel and Christensen, 2012, p.60).
7. Conclusions
The purpose of this thesis was to provide a better understanding of the recent OTT developments
in the Swedish television industry, the possible consequences and implications of this
development, and thereby give industry actors (primarily broadcasters) a “road map” to support
strategic choices for future investments. I thus raised three research questions:
56
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
RQ1: How are the recent OTT developments influencing the Swedish television value
chain?
RQ2: What consequences will this influence have for the members of the television value
chain?
RQ3: What are the strategic implications for the value chain members, given these
consequences?
Of course, these three questions are related to each other in a rather straightforward way:
influences produce consequences, which results in strategic implications for the value chain
members. Regarding influences and consequences in the value chain, these could mainly be said
to fall into either one of two categories; demand or competition. The strategic implications
primarily concern business models.
The value chain members can all be said to have experienced influences as a result of the recent
OTT developments. Those influences can basically be classified as end user driven; an increase
in demand for OTT services from the end users spread down the value chain all the way to
content creators. What is different from an ordinary increase in demand however is that in this
case, the end user demand does not necessarily have to “pass through” the content distributors.
The end user can turn directly to a content packager or a distributor for OTT services. The main
difference between distributors and other value chain members is thus that for distributors, the
primary influence is increased competition, while for the rest of the value chain members the
primary influence is increased demand. Content creators have mainly been influenced by an
increase in demand due to new customers in the value chain, which is driven by content
packagers responding to a new demand from both end user (demand for OTT services) and
distributor (demand for OTT rights). The consequences for content creators, content packagers
and actors in user interface manufacturing is that because of this increased demand, there is also
increased competition. New actors pop up in all of these parts of the value chain. For the
distributors however, the increase in competition could potentially influence demand negatively.
57
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
The OTT developments are still too young see an actual decline in demand for incumbent
distributors, but the risk is most definitely there.
An important conclusion here is that this difference is mainly attributable to OTT distribution
being separated from traditional distribution infrastructure and “runs on an open internet
connection without the benefit of a managed network” (TDG Research, 2011). This is a critical
issue that makes OTT substantially different to other historical technological advancements in
the television industry. The reason for this is that OTT distribution, because of this separation,
has a direct impact on the structure of, and power in the television value chain. The main driver
of this impact is that OTT technology, with its infrastructure-separated nature, allows for
disruptive innovations in the value chain. As the ecosystem is developed further, for instance
with further breakthroughs in mobile broadband (e.g. 5G), the impacts of OTTs separation from
infrastructure can become more significant – as the remaining barrier(s) to disruption fall.
Each link in the value chain naturally has it separate strategic implications 3. But as stated above,
they can all be said to primarily concern business models. For content creators the main strategic
implication has to do with the choice of which customer group to target, as the OTT
development allows for new customer relationships to be developed. As has been covered in this
thesis, content creators are facing difficult new tasks if the choice is to develop relationships with
e.g. end users and advertisers. If they stay with their original customers however, they may reap
the benefits of an increased demand for their services. Increased competition will however place
greater demands on the level of quality offered. For incumbent content packagers, the primary
strategic implication has to do with a choice about forward integration in the value chain. By
developing their existing OTT ventures, they can meet the increased demand for OTT services
from end users and thus take advantage of the structural technology shift. As the jobs that
traditional television do for viewers, are quite similar to those that their OTT services perform
they have the potential to disrupt the distribution market in the value chain. Naturally however,
3
The end users perspective in not included in this section, due to irrelevance (see footnote 1).
58
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
this will certainly affect relationships with current distributors, on which the traditional
advertising and distribution revenue businesses rely heavily. Forward integration should however
provide a more promising financial position, but is characterized by several complicated steps to
implementation. For content distributors, the primary strategic implication is related to how to
develop their customer offerings in order to stay relevant to their existing customers. As their
“walled gardens” gradually loses strength, they will have to rethink their business models to not
be centered on infrastructure, which risks becoming obsolete. If trends in the US are to be treated
as a benchmark, the future for these actors could very well be focused on selling services to end
users. Their relative advantage in handling end user relationships could be of significant use to
them as they enter a new competitive landscape, but the timing to implement such a new strategy
can be imperative as they are facing new competitors that have already started to develop their
potentially disruptive innovations. Finally, for actors in the user interface part of the value chain,
the primary strategic implication concerns the structure of cooperation with OTT service
providers. As disruptive innovations in the television value chain will not harm, but rather help
their intentions to create “market places” for OTT television this structure needs to be altered.
The backwards cooperation structure has become a barrier for disruptive innovation, and an
alteration is needed to facilitate integration for other value chain members. If this is done
however, the user interface link in the value chain could be facing a bright future.
8.1 Contribution
Many professionals in the television industry today have recently raised questions about the OTT
development and how it is affecting the industry, and their specific businesses. What has been
missing in this context is deeper analysis and theoretically grounded reasoning, which in many
cases has left those same professionals wondering what will happen next. This thesis takes on the
challenge to complement that discussion and have contributed in two major ways to the
professional television industry:
59
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
First, it studies a hot topic phenomenon in the Swedish television industry. Even though
broadcasters have run OTT initiatives for the last couple of years already, it’s really just now that
these have begun to show a major impact on the industry. As noted in this thesis, there has been
a general inertia regarding OTT in the television industry up until today. The recent introduction
of several new players in the market have however induced most incumbent actors throughout
the television industry to really start acting on this development now – and naturally, they are all
pondering about what effects it will have on the market as a whole. As Porter puts it: “the
potential effect of technological change on industry structure means that a firm cannot set
technology strategy without considering the structural impacts” (Porter, 1985, p.172). As such,
this thesis have contributed by complementing the discussion with an in-depth analysis of the
influences, consequences and strategic implication that the OTT development have on the
Swedish television industry.
Second, it applies a theoretical perspective on the OTT developments in the Swedish television
industry – a part that has been missing in the professional context. By using Porter’s well-known
value chain framework as a foundation and then other relevant theories, with Wessel and
Christensen’s ideas on disruptive innovations as the most apparent, for in-depth analysis, it has
contributed to the industry literature and ongoing discussion about this new phenomenon in the
industry. Theoretical approaches are often valuable in a practical context, as it can serve as a
solid foundation for investment decision.
This thesis has also contributed to the academic and scientific field. Primarily, it has contributed
to the understanding of technology development in Swedish television sector. As this area is in
constant development, research often becomes obsolete quickly. As such, all research on
technology developments in this area is important, as it will add to our continuous understanding
of it. More importantly though, as I have concluded in this thesis, the OTT development is
fundamentally different to other previous technological developments in this industry. Additions
of research on OTT technology to the field of academic literature is thus of utter importance, as
the consequences of this technology represents an important shift in the Swedish television
60
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
industry. The academic research that has been done on this technology development has, to my
knowledge, not had a value chain perspective (or even an industry perspective) but has instead
focused on individual relationship impacts or competition in general, within the industry. This
thesis has thus contributed to the existing literature, by a) providing research on an important
technological development that have the intrinsic potential to cause an important shift throughout
the entire industry, and b) by applying a value chain perspective to this development in order to
analyze industry influences, consequences and implications, rather than just “smaller pieces of
the puzzle”.
Another reflection concerns the selection on interviewees. I have tried to conduct interviews with
an as diverse group as possible at TV4-Gruppen. As such, I have interviewed members of
management, middle managers and other employees at the case company. However, that type of
selection might not have been enough. It later stuck me that the data obtained on content creators
61
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
might have been slightly more complete if interviews had been conducted with employees that
have regular contact with such actors, such as the Director of Programming or the Head of
Acquisitions.
Another avenue for future research could be to use a different approach to industry analysis than
Porter’s value chain theory. For instance, Normann and Ramirez’ “Value constellation” theory
could be a useful and more modern framework for industry analysis.
62
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
9. Bibliography
Allio, R. J. & Fahey J. 2012. Joan Magretta: what executives can learn from revisiting Michael
Porter. Strategy & Leadership, 40 (2): 5-10.
Analysys Mason. Over-the-top (OTT) video services will account for nearly half of secondary
TV services in Europe by 2017. http://www.analysysmason.com/About-Us/News/Insight/
Pay-TV-Europe-Aug2012/; August 17, 2012
Bower, J. L. & Christensen, C. M. 1995. Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard
Business Review, 73 (1): 45-53.
Brode, G. 2012. TV is next: Why investors are getting the media industry wrong. Unpublished
white paper. Silver Arrow Capital, New York, NY.
Bryman, A. & Bell, E. 2007. Business Research Methods. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Christensen, C. M. & Raynor, M. E. 2003. The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining
successful growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Forrester, C. 2011. Will OTT kill off managed distribution? IBE: International Broadcast
Engineer. March/April 2011: 8-10.
Graham, G. & Smart, A. 2010. The regional-newspaper industry supply chain and the internet.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 15 (3): 196-206.
63
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
Loebbecke, C. & Powell, P. 2002. E-business in the entertainment sector: the Egmont case.
International Journal of Information Management. 22: 307-322.
Malhotra, N. K. Marketing research: An applied orientation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Mougayar, W. 1998. Opening digital markets: Battle plans and business strategies for internet
commerce. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Montpelit, M., Klym, N. & Mirlacher T. 2011. The future of IPTV – Connected, mobile,
personal and social. Multimedia Tools and Applications. 53 (3): 519-532.
Porter, M.E. 2001. Strategy and the internet. Harvard Business Review. 79 (3): 62-78.
Shank, J. K. & Govindarajan, V. 1992. Strategic cost management: The value chain perspective.
Journal of Management Accounting Research. Fall 1992: 179-197.
Taskin, M. 2009. Can OTT TV win the day? IBE: International Broadcast Engineer.
Sep/Oct 2009: 25-26.
64
Is OTT Disrupting Television?
The Economist. 2010. Monitor: The net generation, unplugged. March 6, 394 (8672) Special
section: 10.
Wang, S. The long tail: Why aggregation & context and not (necessarily) content are king in
entertainment. Unpublished presentation. Bear Sterns.
Yin, R. K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.
65