by Charlene Weisler

That question was hotly debated at the recent New York Media Festival conference in New York City. 

Arguably the most impactful changes  were  "major shifts in video consumption,” according to Ned Sherman, counsel/director, Manatt Digital and founder, Digital Media Wire.
Cord-cutting, once dismissed by industry experts, appears to be accelerating. Emarketer reported that in 2017 there were 22.2 million U.S. adults cutting the cord, "up +33% in this year alone," Sherman noted.
On an even more ominous note, the percentage of cord-nevers also rose (+5.8%) to 34.4 million. 

Will these cord-nevers eventually succumb to the siren call of traditionally accessed TV? That remains to be seen. In the meantime, the business of TV must respond to the current landscape as it evolves.

Here are some predictions for the future of TV:
Facilitating content across platforms will have to become pro-forma. As viewership moves across platforms, the ability to easily offer content cross platform becomes vital to satisfying consumer demands. 

Tom Shelburne, director of operations, Vizrt, noted that “TV is at a crossroads and needs a reboot.” His company enables content to be published anywhere on multiple platforms at the same time.

Generation Z-focused companies such as Awesomesness TV have designed their business model on the TV shift, according to Rebecca Glashow, the company’s head of worldwide distribution, awesomenesstv.

While legacy networks might be handcuffed by contractual obligations that limit cross-platform content rights, her company has established a business model appropriate for their target audience that is multi-platform at its core.

Quality, unique content are table stakes. No matter how easy you make the distribution of content, if that content fails to engage the audience, your efforts will be for naught. Floris Bauer, co-founder and president, Gunpowder and Sky, advised, “TV needs to innovate, decline or die.”

Still there is a certain amount of self-censorship according to Paul Potenzone, senior vice president/Content Director at Digitas Studios, DigitasLBi. “You need conflict in content to make it interesting,” he posited, “and big companies are too careful with shareholders.”

Creating compelling content is not only expensive, often involving trial and error, it is time-consuming. But the risk of not focusing on the development of unique content is greater than spending time, money and creative capital on it and risking failure. As Mike Vorhaus, president, Magid Advisors, concluded, “Unique content is table stakes.”

Small is nimble and yet, bigger may be better. There are three challenges that place stress on smaller networks: increased competition, the cost of doing business and the fight for distribution. While the fight for distribution may be ameliorated with the vastness of the IP that enables nimble smaller networks to expand their distribution, the first two challenges may see the demise of many smaller niche networks, according to some.

Glashow noted that “The cable bundle has only ten brands that mean something. The rest was born to fill in” the channel offerings. She sees the death of smaller networks because there is not enough investment in them.

There is no absolute path for television network success in the coming years. But the best advice of the day was from Peter Phillips, former executive vice president/general manager, interactive and distribution, Marvel Entertainment, who concluded, “Experiment and be willing to fail.”