|As the debate around cord-cutting and the shift to over-the-top viewing continues, today’s ADU will again dig into the less analyzed side of the dual-revenue cable bundle model, advertising. This piece builds upon my previous two on the topic, ‘The Importance of TV Advertising Trends, Scarcity and Sports’ and ‘The Cable Bundle and Thompson’s Aggregation Theory.’
To quickly recap, Stratechery’s Ben Thompson argues the bundle is far more secure than many analysts or media members believe or understand, due to the intertwining of business models between networks, the bundle and brands who spend huge amounts of money on TV advertising and the volume of diverse programming that can all be found in one place. These dynamics are not without challenges on the advertising side of the model as Thompson points to changes in consumer and brand behavior that could completely fracture the system and lead to its abrupt downfall. Most recently in college athletics, ESPN & the ACC are betting on the incumbent value propositions with their plans to launch a linear ACC Network in 2019. The Big Ten recently received re-ups by both ESPN and Fox for new rights and we may know very soon how the same broadcast partners value the Big 12’s portfolio as its expansion review continues and may or may not result in institutional additions
According to SportsBusiness Daily, $13.9B was spent on advertising within sports TV programming in 2014. Chevrolet topped the list by investing $322,971,609. Fellow auto industry competitors Ford ($201,346,283), Nissan ($152,346,285), Toyota ($142,076,962), Mercedes-Benz ($138,422,505) & Lexus ($127,445,851) all finished in the Top 25. Combined, the sextet poured $1,084,609,405 into sports TV advertising. These same companies, along with the entire automobile industry, are facing the potential of major disruption to their businesses by the likes of Uber, Tesla and Apple. Here’s why athletic administrators should keep a close eye on each:
Here’s betting the vast majority of you have experienced Uber’s nearly frictionless ride-hailing and digital payment technology that has completely upended the traditional taxi industry and made anyone a cabbie who has a car and the interest. Transportation-as-a-Service (or Mobility-as-a-Service) is generally defined as:
…a shift away from personally owned modes of transportation and towards mobility solutions that are consumed as a service. This is enabled by combining transportation services from public and private transportation providers through a unified gateway that creates and manages the trip, which users can pay for with a single account. Users can pay per trip or a monthly fee for a limited distance. The key concept behind MaaS is to offer both the travelers and goods mobility solutions based on the travel needs.
The overall long term challenge to the auto industry here is pretty clear, why own a car when you can hail one on demand and create: a) Physical drive time savings as the passenger is no longer the vehicle operator (time=money); and, b) Cost savings in the form of insurance, gas, registration, purchase/lease, upkeep, parking, etc? There are certainly arguments to support the status quo, as well, but Uber’s volume from the first six months of 2015 is nothing short of eye-opening (Uber is still a private company, making access to data quite difficult). From Forbes staffer Solomon’s, ‘Leaked: Uber’s Financials Show Huge
Growth, Even Bigger Losses’:
Uber had gross bookings (total fares charged to app customers, before the drivers get their cut) of $3.63 billion in the first half of 2015. That’s up from just $2.93 billion in all of the prior year. So Uber’s overall ride-hailing business is strong: unless these figures fell off in the second half of 2015, it likely more than doubled its bookings year over year.
It’s also quite clear major autos have a clear eye on TaaS/MaaS as General Motors tried to buy Uber’s main domestic rival, Lyft, just last week, but got denied. Additional notes on Uber include its interest in self-driving cars (more on autonomous cars below) and its entry into the $1T auto loan space in an effort to ensure its drivers can access capital for new vehicles to supply the cycle of ride-sharing. With the rise in ride-hailing (and ride-sharing), students on your campus are undoubtedly plugged into Uber and its competitors, which over time could change how fans arrive at games, potentially impacting traffic flows and more importantly, parking revenues. For all of these disruption trends, Watch Uber.
While Tesla is only projected to sell upwards of 100K new cars in 2016, against an overall car purchase estimate in the United States of 18M, the electric auto manufacturer who handles its own sales directly, not through the traditional dealership model, expects to move 500K annually by 2018. More importantly, Tesla is preparing to roll-out the Model 3, its lowest priced vehicle to date at $35,000 by the end of next year, in an obvious attempt to make the brand more accessible to the masses. If you’re thinking Tesla could eventually replace one of the legacy automakers in volume of TV sports ad spending, I suppose it’s possible, but consider right now it’s earning business on little to no advertising whatsoever.
Clearly, some of the top sports TV advertising spenders have also shifted to electric offerings with mixed results. Back in April, the Chevy Volt posted solid sales numbers, while Nissan’s Leaf sputtered. If Tesla continues to gain ground due to its low environmental impact, exclusive network of national charging stations, sharp design and/or self-driving appeal, the automobile industry and its mainstay brands could be disrupted. Watch Tesla.
You’re probably not surprised to see Apple on this list, though it may not be for the reasons you expect. While recent speculation of how Apple may revamp its Apple TV product to serve as a new age TV Guide is undoubtedly important, especially for college athletics and conferences who have significant content on an app, more central to this article is news the company is fully committed to building a self-driving car. Late last month, TechCrunch reported the effort was being led by longtime executive and former board member, Bob Mansfield. Also late last month, Apple snared Dan Dodge away from BlackBerry’s automotive software unit with Bloomberg Technology’s Gurman and Webb providing additional context:
The initiative is now prioritizing the development of an autonomous driving system, though it’s not abandoning efforts to design its own vehicle. That leaves options open should the company eventually decide to partner with or acquire an established car maker, rather than build a car itself. An Apple spokesman declined to comment.
Apple has hundreds of engineers working on car design and has been targeting a release as soon as 2020. That goal has been affected by multiple departures, technical delays and confusion regarding the direction of the project, according to people with knowledge of the efforts.
The two key leadership hires came on the heels of Apple tabbing former Tesla VP of Product Engineering, Chris Porritt, for the ‘special [car] project’ back in April. Self-driving cars are an unbelievably complicated push, but who here would wager against Apple figuring out hardware? If Apple is successful at introducing its version of a self-driving car and its related benefits, it could be to the detriment of traditional automobile companies and their deep pockets for sports TV advertising. Watch Apple.