Most media companies have long since woken up and embraced online video. Videoland, NPOStart, Streamz, Britbox, Disney +, HBO Max, Peacock, Joyn, Discovery+: so many initiatives have seen daylight.
Big Tech has turned the media industry upside down. Netflix and Amazon have brought about an unprecedented change in consumer viewing habits in long form content, after Google did the same with its YouTube on short form video. The share of streaming in consumer viewing time has grown at an alarming rate, and it may not be long before the tipping point is reached: consumers will inevitably watch more video online than on television.
Most media companies have long since woken up and embraced online video. Videoland, NPOStart, Streamz, Britbox, Disney +, HBO Max, Peacock, Joyn, Discovery+: so many initiatives have seen daylight. Disney's success is resounding and it looks like it could overtake market leader Netflix in the long run. Let's face it: the combination of the Fox and Disney catalog, the addition of Starz and so on, offer a wide catalog for the whole family. Disney even went so far as to put a large number of linear channels in the garbage bin.
Of the Big Tech companies, Amazon is the most adept at online video activities. It cleverly selects the territories where it wants to be present, packs the video offering into its Prime subscription service and also makes a number of very relevant acquisitions. It gives Amazon the market leadership in Germany and strengthens its presence in the Netherlands. The acquisition of MGM was a surprising step and consumers will see the effects of it this summer: the entire James Bond catalog is being marketed smartly and will undoubtedly generate a series of new Prime subscribers.
In all that violence, one global player remains remarkably silent: Apple’s content businessis negligible. Apple TV+ does not appeal at all to the spoiled video consumer. The Morning Show, announced with much fanfare, is hardly watched outside the US and the adjacent video offering is also of poor quality. Are they asleep in Cupertino? I cannot imagine that, because Apple is an excellently run company. Apparently, however, management lacks knowledge in the field of content and therefore there seems to be only one logical stepforward. The analogy arises with Google, which tried to compete in online video with Google Video 15 years ago, but remained in a disappointing second position. The solution? The acquisition of market leader (and at the moment fiercely loss making) YouTube.
I had actually expected years ago that Apple had acquired Netflix, but after the unprecedented rally of the Netflix share (the price reached a peak of more than 700 dollars last year), that thought seemed unfeasible. But Netflix has landed back on earth and the stock is hovering around $170: surely the policymakers in Cupertino could think of this enticing thought again? The financing of this does not seem to be a problem for Apple. Or will they find the risk of investing in content too great and continue to navigate the current, extraordinarily successful business model (selling hardware with insanely easy software and wonderful user interface)?
In the 1960s, the United States fell behind in the space race with the Soviet Union. Yuri Gagarin was the first human to break through the Earth's atmosphere, a monumental achievement. Unable to accept this, the United States - through President John F. Kennedy - established the goal of landing the first person on the moon within a timespan of 10 years. The rest is history and the wording of such a distant, grand objective became known as the 'moonshot goal.'
Stating such a goal is even more important when things are a bit difficult. That was the case with Kennedy's example and is the case for many public broadcasters in Europe. The sentiment in politics is generally unfavorable, budget cuts are commonplace, and digital competition is capturing viewership share. Young people are increasingly unable to find public broadcasters, and consequently a significant strategic crisis has emerged. This is the situation in Scandinavia, Germany, the United Kingdom, and in our own country. Let alone the situation in Poland and Spain.
So, there is a crisis in public broadcasting in Europe, precisely at a time when polarization is increasing, and misinformation is rampant. Especially during such times, it is crucial to prioritize neutral reporting and foster a sense of community. Excellent leadership is invaluable in such circumstances. And it's not the first time that the BBC has set an example during such times. Tim Davie, the excellent Director-General of the BBC, spoke at a Royal Television Society event last month. His argument centered around the fact that the future of the United Kingdom is at risk in democratic, social and cultural terms. He saw three roles for the BBC in countering this threat. Pursuing truth with no agenda by reporting fearlessly and fairly. Backing the best British storytelling by investing in homegrown talent and creativity. Lastly, bringing people together by connecting everyone to unmissable content.
That's what you call a moonshot goal! Because what follows from this? The BBC must serve its 'customers' from every platform, at all times. BBC Three will be closed as young people will find BBC content online, via iPlayer. New services are being developed, such as BBC Verify: the future major fact-checker. Interventions will be made in the BBC organization to make all this possible. And finally, the BBC will also explore whether a new, better funding system than the archaic licensing fee can be developed.
Isn't it wonderful? In the United Kingdom, significant changes are being developed from a strategic perspective. In the Netherlands, we only see politically motivated cost-cutting measures within the public broadcaster, neglecting the pursuit of deliberate strategic advancement in the media sector. I rest my case...
Na een loopbaan bij de commerciële (SBS) en publieke (KRO-NCRV) omroep belandde Rijssemus bij producent IDTV, onderdeel van het Britse All3Media dat hem uiteindelijk richting Berlijn dirigeerde om ook de Duitse markt te veroveren. "Dat had ik niet verwacht, moet ik zeggen", aldus Rijssemus lachend. "Ik dacht: ze vragen me voor Amerika, of een bedrijf ergens in de UK misschien."
Wat trof Rijssemus aan en is Duitsland nog steeds 'de heilige graal'? "Je moet de balans vinden: hoeveel energie geeft en kost een baan je?"
Hoe kwam deze student fiscaal recht en economie uiteindelijk in de mediawereld terecht en waarom wilde hij namens RTL zo graag Videoland overnemen? “We hebben daar veel van geleerd en ook heel veel fouten gemaakt, met name een deel infrastructuur totaal nieuw moeten bouwen”, blikt Habets terug. “Toen we 40.000 abonnees hadden, bleek het platform niet meer aan te kunnen…”
Inmiddels opereert hij vanuit München op de Duitse markt en past ook daar zijn ervaring toe met “het omkatten van een televisie- naar een streaming first-bedrijf.” Habets romantiseert zijn internationale carrière niet: “Je moet eerlijk zijn naar jezelf en het doen om de juiste redenen, anders wordt het gewoon een baan.”