시청자들이 수많은 새로운 스트리밍 서비스에 압도당하는 느낌을 받을 수 있다는 것은 쉽게 알 수 있습니다. 사실 수많은 서비스 덕분에 많은 사람들이 한때 많은 코드 커터들이 원했던 번들 콘텐츠에 대한 갈망을 갖게 되었습니다.
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 플레이 상태 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.
스트리밍 시청자가 비용에 관심이 없다고 말하는 것은 순진한 생각일 수 있지만, 비용 절감은 더 이상 동영상 스트리밍이 제공하는 가치 제안이 아닙니다. 실제로 닐슨의 최근 스트리밍 미디어 소비자 설문조사에 따르면 응답자의 15%는 현재 스트리밍 서비스에 매달 50달러 이상을 지출하고 있으며, 17%는 30달러에서 49.99달러 사이를 지출하고 있는 것으로 나타났습니다.
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.
비디오 스트리밍의 부상과 함께 TV 환경이 진화한 만큼, 많은 시청자가 플랫폼 선택의 폭을 넓히는 데 어려움을 겪고 있는 만큼 편의성은 여전히 시청자들의 가장 큰 욕구입니다.
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”
닐슨 스트리밍 미디어 소비자 설문조사
사실 소비자에게 있어 사용의 용이성(즉, 편의성)과 콘텐츠의 다양성은 비용만큼이나 중요한 요소입니다.
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.
참고
- 닐슨 스트리밍 미디어 소비자 설문조사
- 그레이스노트 글로벌 비디오 데이터
