新しいストリーミング・サービスの多さに、視聴者が圧倒されるのは目に見えている。実際、サービスの多さは、多くのコードカッターたちがかつて離れようとしていたもの、つまりバンドル・コンテンツを望むようになった。
Despite the notable rise in streaming adoption, the premise of bundled content is rooted in something audiences have never wanted more than they do today: convenience. As detailed in our recent プレーの状況 report, 64% of streaming subscribers say they wish there was a single company that would allow them to choose as few or as many video streaming services as they wanted, “more like channels.”
While today’s TV landscape is much different than when multichannel programming started back in the late 1940s, bundled video content back then was rooted in the same idea: content access. Specifically, the advent of multichannel television gave national TV audiences access to a wide range of programming options through a single subscription. That model remained dominant until cord cutting picked up speed with the arrival of the Great Recession, at which time the average U.S. household had access to 189 different channels.
Despite the wealth of options, TV households only tuned into an average of 17 channels. That, combined with the weight of rising unemployment amid the recession, left many households unable to justify a monthly cable bill that averaged $71, resulting in a rise in cord cutting. But convenience has never fallen out of favor with audiences. It’s just evolved.
Today, 44% of U.S. households have cut the cord (i.e., they don’t rely on cable or satellite for their TV content), but cost isn’t the motivating factor that it once was. Today, the growing variety of over-the-top (OTT) streaming services—many with their own unique offerings—has many audiences adding to their existing options to avoid FOMO.
Today, cost is less of a concern than it was back in 2007-08, and consumers are gravitating to over-the-top (OTT) streaming options for choice of content—often as a complement to their existing TV services. In fact, 36% of streaming subscribers1 say they would add a new service as an incremental cost when faced with the prospect of missing content that’s available on a service they don’t currently have access to. Another 12% say they’d rather drop a non-video subscription before simply not adding a new video service.
ストリーミングの視聴者はコストに関心がないと言えばそれまでだが、ビデオストリーミングが示す価値提案はもはや節約ではない。実際、ニールセンの最近のストリーミング・メディア消費者調査によると、回答者の15％が毎月50ドル以上をストリーミング・サービスに費やしており、17％は30～49.99ドルを費やしている。
The increase in consumer spending on services correlates with the growing wealth of streaming service choice, which some estimate exceeds 200. With more than 817,000 unique program titles2 to choose from across traditional TV and streaming services, it’s easy to see why audiences are increasingly subscribing to more than just one or two services.
ビデオストリーミングの台頭でテレビの状況が進化したのと同様に、視聴者の間では利便性が最大の欲求であることに変わりはない。
46% of streaming subscribers: “It’s getting harder to find the video streaming content that I want to watch because there are too many streaming services available”
ニールセン・ストリーミング・メディア消費者調査
実際、消費者にとって、使いやすさ（＝利便性）やコンテンツの豊富さは、コストと同じくらい重要だ。
Few would argue that more content is a bad thing, and the significant shift in how consumers engage with video content has forever altered TV viewing. Importantly, 93% of consumers say they plan to increase their streaming usage over the coming year, highlighting that the crowded industry isn’t having a negative effect on audiences’ overall experiences. The sentiment about feeling overwhelmed—while consumers simultaneously increase their streaming time and spend—highlights an opportunity to deliver on a need that continues to stand the test of time: convenience.
備考
- ニールセン・ストリーミング・メディア消費者調査
- Gracenote グローバル・ビデオ・データ
