1. Amazon Channels Dominates

I started reading the Babylon Berlin series by Volker Kutscher about 10 years ago and so I was thrilled when it was made into a series for German TV a few years back. The first three seasons of the series, which has received generally positive reviews, were available on Netflix, but not Season 4, which recently wound up on a niche service called MHZ that specializes in foreign series and movies. 

I wasn’t 100% sure how I’d watch MHZ or if it was even available on all my myriad smart TVs and connected devices. So when I saw that it was available via Amazon Prime, I pounced like a tomcat on a field mouse. (Cats being a big media theme this week.)

I knew that Amazon was available on every device I owned, did a good job of integrating niche apps into its interface (I already subscribe to PBS Masterpiece). And it allowed downloads, key for someone who travels as much as I do.

It seems I am not alone in my Amazonian tendencies. 

A new study from Antenna reveals that nearly a third of SVOD customers now subscribe to at least one niche platform, and when they do, Amazon is their platform of choice: 56% of specialty app signups come via Amazon Channels. 

Which, while it’s never a great idea to give Amazon and Google too much dominance over anything, is probably not a bad thing for these niche subscription apps.

Why It Matters

Amazon, as noted, does a really good job of integrating the app into its Prime Video interface. To the point where you forget that this is a separate app you are paying a monthly subscription for.

Or not.

There is a definite possibility that people sign up to watch one series and unsubscribe once they’re done.

But that’s on the service, not on Amazon. Sort of.

When the app lives on Prime, it’s competing, in the moment, with everything else on Prime. Whereas when it lives on its own, it’s just competing with itself, meaning that it’s easier for the app to show you something else you might want to watch.

Again, sort of.

Amazon does a good job of showing you other series from the services you’re subscribed to in the main interface. Given that they get a cut of the subscription fee, that’s not exactly an unexpected move.

It also solves for “Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind” (OOS-OOM) syndrome. This is a big problem overall in the industry—there is just way too much to watch, consumers are overwhelmed and so they gravitate to a handful of apps that have everything they feel they need.

OOS-OOM Syndrome is also why so much of the library content on SVOD services goes unwatched—people are focused on the originals and on big-name reruns. They forget the rest is there.

So being on Amazon Prime helps.

There’s one final reason why Amazon Channels is a good thing for niche services: advertising.

If you recall, Amazon did that thing where, presto-change-o, they transformed all their ad-free viewers into ad-supported ones. All 50 million plus of them. 

And that’s just in the US.

So should any of those currently ad-free services decide they want to add an ad-supported option, Amazon’s got them covered and then some—there’s all that Amazon data too.

What You Need To Do About It

If you’re Amazon, keep on keeping on. Consolidation is coming in a big way for the TV industry and you are poised to benefit from that. You also get all sorts of valuable targeting data based on what subscriptions your customers sign up for. Not to mention more time spent on the app. 

Just remember to keep making the experience a positive one from the user POV. The current system, where the niche app is integrated into the Prime app is a very good one and benefits you because you can pitch your new originals and live sporting events to those SVOD subs as they pass through.

If you are a niche app owner, you could do worse than Amazon. Consider them an enlightened dictator, one who has total control over just about everything, but who realizes that by treating the people well, they really can remain in power forever.

Or at least until the FTC steps in.

2. Network News Shows Have A Real Opportunity

The real winner on stage at Tuesday night’s debate may have been ABC’s news division. 

David Muir and Linsey Davis have received a ton of favorable press for the way they handled Donald Trump, calling out his most egregious exaggerations, thus doing what previous debate anchors seemed incapable of doing.

But I am not here to discuss the debate.

I am here to remind you, yet again, that David Muir continually gets ratings four times higher than any of his cable news competitors. Sometimes even six or eight times higher.

Let that sink in.

Ditto CBS and NBC for their evening news shows, which also rank multiples above cable news.

And so I’m thinking that Muir and Davis have given the networks a chance to regain the higher ground in the news game and make something of their news operations for the streaming era.

Carpe Diem and all that.

Why It Matters

As you have no doubt noticed, many of the top print journalists supplement their incomes by appearing as “special correspondents” for the various cable networks. It’s a great way to boost your income and your visibility.

They are joined by up and coming politicians who see cable news appearances as a great way to raise their profiles too.

In reality that means one hand continually feeds the other and it all gets splashed up on social media, which is why cable news so often seems to punch well above its weight.

Because when was the last time you saw a clip from ABC News in your Twitter feed?

My point exactly.

But the reality is that the network news shows have solid reputations that date back to the days of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow.

They are generally perceived to be non-partisan at a time when the three big cable news networks are clearly left, right and (sort of) center.

The networks all have international news teams too, in addition to their sizable enough national ones. Not to mention all the folks at their local owned and operated affiliates.

So given how fed up most people seem to be with the current cable news landscape, why not move the whole shebang to streaming and give people a trusted, non-partisan news option?

It would not be cheap—far from it— and it would need to involve a major investment in their web presence, both on social and on a dedicated website that would, at some level, compete with major print publications. Because face it, that is where most people get their news.

But if done right, it could work, and, more importantly, it would give the networks a real reason for being again.

Not to mention taking the partisanship out of news coverage in a way that does not involve the rampant both-sides-ism that gives the New York Times Pitchbot so much material to work with.

What You Need To Do About It

If you are one of the Big Three networks, think about this. This is a great moment to reassert yourself. Even if all you do is remind people that your ratings are quadruple those of Fox News and octuple those of CNN and MSNBC on a bad night.

You’d be able to take credit for reinventing yourself for the streaming age. Or create an asset you could sell off for big bucks.

But mostly you’d be doing us all a favor by taking partisanship out of the news business. 

It’s worth a shot.