第 325 号合并与电缆 2.0

家庭的中心仍然是有电视的房间。在这个房间里,一场军备竞赛正在我们眼前展开。流媒体正在采用一种端到端的形式,这种形式反映了数字原生品牌的本质:拥有产品,拥有渠道,你就拥有了消费者。但以前不是这样,以后也不一定。

上周末,我妻子想看我们最喜欢的节目。但在我父母所在的佛罗里达州西北部市场,周日晚上的节目被打乱了。他们的家介于传统有线电视和流媒体服务之间。但如果没有HBO Now,我们就无法观看我们一致同意的节目。这种情况不无讽刺意味。

现已退休的Cleon Smith在有线电视行业担任了 30 多年的高管。先是在时代华纳,然后是康卡斯特,最后是考克斯通信。在时代华纳公司,我曾在他新成立的宽带互联网部门实习,该部门的代号为 "Road Runner"。作为该服务的总经理,他所在的市场(休斯顿、达拉斯和奥斯汀的密集三角地带)在纽约埃尔米拉测试后不久就启动了。14 岁那年,我亲眼目睹了他的团队对产品进行调整、营销和推出,而这一产品将塑造德克萨斯州乃至整个国家的未来。这项宽带服务是首个面向大众的宽带服务,它将永远颠覆他公司的核心业务。我也是这么想的。

我理解流媒体行业兴起的原因,但归根结底,这些消费者还是会向往简单的有线电视时代。我们卖出了好产品。

随着宽带互联网的出现和普及,Youtube 等服务于 2005 年推出。随后,Netflix 就像一场飓风袭击了毫无防备的胶合板住宅岛,于 2007 年转向流媒体服务。这的确改变了一切。

康卡斯特(Comcast)、时代华纳(Time Warner)和考克斯通信(Cox Communications)等公司开始创新,推出了点播选项,并最终实现了在 OTT 设备上登录 Netflix 或 Hulu 账户。但这并没有结束。上述每家公司都受到了干扰。首先是 Netflix 的市场增长方式--这一创新为数百万有线电视、Dish 和 DirecTV 用户提供了 "断线 "的动力。

这是 1995 年消费家庭的一个例子:

  • 广播电视:有线电视或卫星电视提供商
  • 基本:有线电视或卫星服务提供商
  • 高级服务:有线电视或卫星服务提供商

这是 2012 年消费者家庭的一个例子: 

  • 广播电视:有线电视或卫星电视提供商
  • 基本:有线电视或卫星服务提供商
  • 高级服务:Netflix、iTunes

这是 2020 年消费家庭的一个例子:

  • 广播电视:天线、Hulu+、Sling、DirecTV Now、CBS All Access
  • 基本:Philo、Sling、YouTubeTV、Playstation VUE、Netflix、Roku、iTunes
  • 高级服务:Netflix、Showtime(流媒体)、HBO Now、Prime Video、Vudu、Disney+

2007 年至 2018 年间,Netflix 通过购买、授权或制造知识产权,建立了一个众所周知的 "商城"。它类似于传统有线电视的元素,但它强调的是节目,而不是频道。Netflix Originals 从独立制片人手中购买,并作为 Netflix 自己的产品进行营销。像《老友记》和《办公室风云》这样的广播电视节目,每年的授权费用高达数千万美元。好莱坞大牌明星和顶级导演获得了 3 亿美元的电影预算,足以与大制片厂发行的电影相媲美。然而,Netflix 目前的股价却创下了六个月来的新低,此前传出的消息包括:历史性的订阅损失、提价 2 美元后出现的小规模反弹以及两部主要影片的流失。行业分析师安迪-米克(Andy Meek)[1] 就此事发表了看法:

Netflix 在本季度流失了 12.6 万名用户,这是自 Netflix 开始制作原创内容以来首次出现这种情况。哎呀。再加上本季度缺乏新的热门内容,《Friends》和《The Office》等节目即将流失,以及苹果、迪士尼和 HBO 母公司等竞争对手即将推出流媒体,这简直就是一场灾难,也是一场流媒体大战的 "肉搏战",每个人都要从 Netflix 身上分一杯羹,不是吗?

随着 Netflix 价值的爆发,一种反向关系显现出来:Netflix 的成功和电影公司的商品化。流媒体行业为终端用户提供了更多的消费选择权和钱包谈判权,从而增加了他们的影响力。在此过程中,剪线也开始对电影公司造成伤害。不仅有线电视合同的价值在减少,他们的流媒体付费也无法弥补损失的收入。

再加上消费者行为的变化、制片厂与流媒体渠道之间的合同纠纷,以及高速数据服务的不断涌现,这些都为行业的持续分裂奠定了基础。


2PM 数据:流媒体的宏观经济学

2018 年美国部分有线电视公司用户流失情况 | 资料来源:Leichtman Research Group:莱赫特曼研究集团
2010 至 2018 年美国付费电视普及率 | 资料来源:Leichtman Research Group:莱赫特曼研究集团
2017 年美国有线电视用户使用的电视服务替代品,按观众类型分列 | 资料来源:尼尔森:尼尔森
美国每月用于观看 OTT 服务的时间 | 资料来源:comScore

最后一张图表可能是最有趣的。迪斯尼旗下的 Hulu 已经开始缩小与 Netflix 之间的差距。随着迪斯尼旗下产品越来越受欢迎,分析师预计 Hulu 将继续缩小 Netflix 的领先优势。

Netflix 计划成为现代消费者的有线电视迭代--这种模式依赖于临界质量的内容和收视率。这种临界质量必须大于所有潜在流媒体竞争对手的总和。有一段时间,里德-黑斯廷斯(Reed Hastings)经营的媒体公司拥有足够多的美国人需要的内容:伟大的经典作品、经典电影、辛迪加情景喜剧、改变游戏规则的原创节目。然后,生态系统开始分裂。老友记》(Friends)等剧集转投华纳传媒(WarnerMedia)的流媒体服务,而《办公室》(The Office)则准备离开 Netflix 的内容菜单,转投 NBC 的流媒体服务。Becca Blaznek 谈《办公室》为何离开 Netflix[2]:

其中包括拥有《办公室》版权的 NBC 环球公司。2019 年 6 月 25 日,该公司发表声明称,他们将不再与 Netflix 续约,而是从 2021 年开始将这部 "稀世珍宝 "引入自己的平台。据《好莱坞报道者》称,这暂时不会影响国际观众。

与在新经济环境下进行垂直竞争的消费类别一样,制片厂品牌也在争夺剪线消费者的心智份额。然而,这却产生了意想不到的效果。与传统广播或服务提供商相比,现代消费者更喜欢流媒体,但与其他流媒体设备相比,传统消费者仍然更喜欢传统电视。

DTC 的演变

OTT 设备销售额战略分析

随着媒体分裂的继续,电影公司与现有流媒体服务之间的合同谈判只会愈演愈烈。这将增加消费者的订阅成本。剪线时代的承诺有两个方面:(1)改善家庭经济;(2)问责制。消费者希望避免闲置电视节目被忽视。如今,"剪线者 "通常会每月订阅 5-10 项媒体服务,以实现同样的消费倾向:无论使用率如何,都能获得服务。

如今的消费者只能屈从于 "订阅/登录/找回密码/闲置订阅 "这种令人眼花缭乱的舞步,却无法享受到传统有线电视服务提供商为消费者提供的便利。

因此,破坏者应该受到破坏。这样看来,之前的推断可能是错误的,而我父亲最终可能是对的。康卡斯特(Comcast)、考克斯(Cox)和 AT&T 等有线电视和数据提供商控制着管道,而电影制片厂与新时代的流媒体服务之间的矛盾日益突出,这种势头正朝着有利于传统的方向发展。虽然 Roku 和 Apple TV 等 OTT 盒子让订阅和节目搜索变得无限简单,但消费者与流媒体代理商之间的 1:1 连接仍在颠覆创新的初衷:便捷、一致和价值。

传统媒体消费者很可能已经达到了他们的极限。剪线是经济驱动的现象。放弃流媒体经济而回归传统有线电视是一个节目可用性和易用性的问题(试试用亲戚的有线电视盒子登录 Netflix)。

流媒体服务将被捆绑。我们很可能已经接近 OTT 运营商向消费者推销预先商定的、经济实惠的捆绑式流媒体服务的机会。无需登录、统一价格、无需担心错过--过去的一切都已成为现在。迪斯尼的流媒体产品可能是唯一的胜利者;它们的价值和影响力可能会超过合并后的转变。对于所有其他公司来说,流媒体视频点播(SVOD)市场的分化已经开始蚕食直接面向消费者的机会,而这正是最初的吸引力所在。

因此,零售业的 DTC 成本弹性与 SVOD 的弹性有相似之处。对于在线零售商而言,随着数字原生品牌充斥市场,CAC 也随之上升(效果广告库存保持不变)。对于 Netflix 这样的流媒体公司来说,由于电影制片厂涌入流媒体市场,其产品的广告费用变得高昂,因此 CAC 也随之上升。虽然 Facebook 和谷歌的广告库存限制导致了价格弹性,但 SVOD 的情况略有不同。流媒体消费者的支出已接近其弹性点。最终的结局可能是合并,这也是人们对昔日有线电视美好时光的向往。

点击这里阅读第 325 期策划

韦伯-史密斯的研究与报告 |关于 2PM

补充阅读:(1)会员简报:网飞报告》(2) 《周一来信》:百年泰坦》(3)Nate Poulin 的 这篇精彩文章进一步介绍了这份报告的来龙去脉。

第 324 期拥有观众

owntheaudience.jpg

零售业社交平台创新的隐性成本。 我们购买的地点、方式和内容在不断变化。消费者通过亚马逊 Alexa 下单购买 "艾玛-希尔周三在 Instagram 上发布的那条裙子",与直接从艾玛-希尔的 Instagram 账户购买同一条裙子的可能性一样大。交易工具在发展,漏斗在缩短和扩大,商业变得线性。没有比 Instagram 更能说明这一点的了,在 Instagram 上,品牌、推广和商业之间的界限不断模糊。

Instagram的原生购物车是行业向线性商务转变的一部分。中国的超级应用,如小红书和微信的 "良品圈",已经把中国消费者的集体评论力量变成了他们购物体验中不可或缺的一部分。而且,随着美国平台的广告模式受到监管机构的攻击,增加社交商务功能将成为受众驱动型平台越来越普遍的对冲手段。在美国,Verishop等平台在用户体验中加入了Instagram 和 Snapchat 有影响力者的原生促销帖子。


第 314 号线性商业法

数字经济会奖励那些在传统数字媒体和传统电子商务的分界线上工作的公司。优秀的产品需要有机的、充满激情的受众。受众需要为他们量身定制的产品和服务。线性商务是指数字媒体和传统在线零售最终将在中心交汇--沿着这条线--最有效的增长路径。品牌将把出版作为核心竞争力,出版商将把零售作为核心竞争力。


Instagram 原生结账功能的推动下,社交商务缩小了促销与消费之间的界限。我们既受大众市场影响者、品牌模特和营销活动的影响,也受我们所关注的同龄人的影响。Instagram、Snapchat 和 Pinterest 等社交平台上的线性商务代表了消费与影响的终极融合。它将消费主义的商业活动转变为对创意的追求,在这一过程中,获得最佳回报的品牌往往是最具创意的品牌。如今,社交媒体既是经济价值的驱动力,也是艺术表达的画布。

零售业的战术家们很快就为灵感与结账漏斗之间的融合所创造的奇迹而欢呼雀跃。由于绩效营销的价值趋于平缓,成本不断增加,这种以影响力为驱动的销售形式已成为一种更具成本效益的替代方案。

一个好的产品需要一个有机的、充满激情的受众群体。受众需要为其量身定制的产品和服务

Instagram 等平台已经成功地将我们的注意力货币化。它们正在将我们的网络商业化。这将增强平台作为守门人的力量,而这种策略我们以前也见过。


成员简介:熟悉的策略

2010 年,Facebook 上最受欢迎的十大品牌页面是这样的:Pringles、Converse、Victoria's Secret、Converse All-Star、Red Bull、Skittles、Disney、Oreo 和 Starbucks,以及最受欢迎的品牌:可口可乐。可口可乐拥有 2200 多万粉丝,Facebook 的有机覆盖率曾一度达到顶峰,品牌为扩大受众群而进行的投资利润丰厚。九年后的今天,可口可乐的页面粉丝已达 1.07 亿。最近的一篇文章仅获得了 1,500 个赞。没错,只有 0.0014% 的可口可乐受众 "喜欢 "了这个帖子。


从战略上讲,依赖外部社交平台来扩大商业规模的品牌将承担相应的后果。策划独立受众是一个复杂的过程,既有长远利益,也有短期困扰;营销主管们长期以来一直低估了这种社区发展和营销方法的价值。但是,当我们赞美平台驱动型线性商务的优点时,它也有过期的时候。品牌的最佳发展道路是独立发展。

关于平台驱动的零售问题:

撰稿人:Ana Andjelic 是《福布斯》CMO Next 成员,已获得社会学博士学位。

产品 > 品牌。平台驱动的线性商务强调个人时刻而非品牌。消费者购买的是一种外观,而不是某个品牌。因此,产品的品牌价值在整体中处于次要地位。这样一来,社交平台的机制就成了产品的播种机。这种以产品为中心的模式对品牌资产没有什么帮助。从长远来看,它还可能对销售产生不利影响。

品味气泡。如果你看过足够多的相关报道,Instagram 已经取代了商场。不同之处在于,典型的郊区购物中心并没有预先设定的偏好。消费者几乎无法控制这些平台的可购物性。相反,它们起到了推荐泡沫的作用。内容泡沫的危险已经有大量文件证明。消费者获得的是他们已经认可的内容,这就会产生偏见,很快就会固化一个人对质量、可用性或偏好的概念。现在想象一下味觉泡沫,消费者被提供他们已经感兴趣的产品。这里有一个很好的例子,说明了算法对以前被认为是主观的理解的解释

更长的产品生命周期。如果说网络零售影响了消费者远离实体商场,那么社交平台则阻碍了消费者的所有权。根据ThredUp 的预测,未来五年内,转售市场的总价值将翻一番,达到 510 亿美元。传统零售业依靠产品创新和季节性经营。社交平台可能会延长产品的生命周期,这对品牌来说可能是另一个不利因素。同样的产品,只要是有影响力的胶囊或影响者装备的组成部分,就可以进行营销和再营销。考虑一下零售影响力应用 Depop。在 "关于我们"部分

在意识到Depop需要一个销售功能后,西蒙将该应用重新构想为一个全球市场--在这个移动空间里,你可以看到你的朋友和受你启发的人正在喜欢、购买和销售什么。

反过来,你在世界各地的朋友和有影响力的创意人士也能看到你喜欢、购买和出售的东西,并从你这里获得灵感。这个生态系统支持得宝成为连接全球的渠道,不仅在移动电子商务领域,而且在世界各地的文化、设计和创意社区。

潮流周期的缩短加上产品寿命的延长,可能会对零售业的运营、生产、分销和营销策略产生影响。零售业务的这些领域必须不断发展,以应对产品偏好和口味的实时起伏。

品牌对社交平台依赖性的兴衰将反映出媒体以前对这些平台的依赖性。

当今的流行趋势是在传统品牌或广告影响之外做出的购买决策。产品越来越多地由角色驱动,而非品牌驱动。光速创投(Lightspeed Venture Partners)在此报道了Lady Gaga 推出的 Haus。

品牌对社交平台依赖的兴衰将反映出媒体过去对这些平台的依赖。唯一合适的解决方案是拥有受众;最精明的品牌正在成为自己的出版商。

数字经济将奖励那些沿着媒体和零售业分界线经营的数字产业。这两个行业之间的界线不再是一条分界线。它代表了两个行业的影响。线性商务已成为企业经久不衰的零售战略。

点击这里阅读第 324 期策划

Web Smith 和 Ana Andjelic 博士的报告 |About 2PM

第 323 期:品牌社会学

sociologyofbrand.jpg

Zero to one, in the age of Moore’s Law, is an interesting phenomenon to observe. We see it in software and other forms of technology. It’s a common enough sight. Like Facebook’s 2004 explosion or Slack’s adoption growth in 2015, the hockey stick is so frequently observed that we expect other types of businesses to emulate the same trajectory. But fashion doesn’t work the same, the best ones take time and discernment. They pop after confluences of events or press mentions or the right person wearing something at the right time. It’s a brand’s foundation that should be the KPI, not it’s sales CRM.

It wasn’t until I recently spoke with the managing partner of a sizable family office that I learned just how little knowledge there is about what is required to build an enduring apparel brand. One that can IPO or stand on its own as a privately-held, profitable company.

Fashion retail is different than other product categories. In ways, it’s applied sociology. A DTC fashion founder can manipulate lifetime value (LTV) through product iteration, SKU variance, loyalty programs, and savvy ad retargeting. But fashion will never resemble the predictability or dependence often found in the consumption of cleaning products, dietary supplements, beauty components, or grooming necessities. Those products are needs more than wants. Apparel is often the opposite, it’s the embodiment of prioritizing our wants over our immediate needs. The DTC apparel space is irrational.

However unpopular the notion, venture capital is well suited for consumer packaged goods. Perhaps accessories and furniture, as well. Those are the types of one-off purchases that can be simplified to a simple ratio: $ = (MSRP – COGS) / CAC. The $500 luggage brand can spend $100 acquiring a customer and still net nearly $200 per sale (assuming a $200 cost of goods). Luggage is a need – even if it’s a fancy aluminum one that shines through the terminals of the world. But there’s never been a product with more substitutes than fashion and that’s why it’s becoming clear that digitally-native apparel brands may not be suited for traditional venture capital.

Whether or not there is a brand to suit that trend or idea is answered by studying the society, not an algorithm.

I’d argue that the vast majority of fashion-based digital-natives have better odds of developing profitability, scale, and potential exit without traditional venture capital. The growth horizon for fashion is closer to 10-15 years than it is 5-7 years. That 5-10 year difference allows for improved founder discernment, real consumer connection, and a shot at a longevity independent of the customer acquisition methods that venture firms are subsidizing today.

In a conversation with former Rebecca Minkoff CMO and Sociology Ph.D Ana Andjelic [1], she remarked on this issue.


Contributor: Ana Andjelic

Fashion is applied sociology. It is a recording mechanism of our time. It captures values that a society emphasizes at the moment and these values can live as a dress, a song, as a tweet, as a t-shirt or graffiti.

A couple of years ago, it was a time of rebellion and Vetements was at its peak with hoodies that made one look like they’d just smashed a Berlin wall. Some of their garments wore massive shoulders that seemed to signal “stay away.” But values unfold. What set Vetements or Off-White on a path for success, today, actually happened a decade or longer ago.

It was then when luxury fashion began to feel the generational shift – in brands, media, consumers, platforms.

The arc by which a fashion brand becomes popular is long. For example, everyone is talking today about Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club as new models of retail. That as may be, their rise started a decade earlier when men’s grooming habits started to shift. They were first to capitalize on the shift in the culture of modern masculinity.

Gwyneth Paltrow is often quoted saying that she was crucial in making yoga popular. That’s probably true. This idea symbolizes the American consumer’s fascination with Veblen brands [2] and the spread of trends from affluent to everyone. Again, the arc of adoption is long and has more to do with social influence and the evolving social currency than with a specific business model.

The biggest indicator that VCs should consider is whether a society is ready to embrace a new trend or an idea. Whether or not there is a brand to suit that trend or idea is answered by studying the society, not an algorithm.


The practice of reducing every product and brand decision to a figure on a Google dashboard is as pervasive as ever. In a recent conversation with an early stage apparel founder, he cited the need to maintain a consistent, non-promotional price point for his apparel concept. He pinpointed a specific, luxury customer and worked to develop messaging and content around a consumer that we called “Lucy.” A married mother of three, Lucy was an active, suburban resident with a household income of $320,000. Her neighborhood scratched the highest strata of the middle class. Her disposable income hovered between $3,000 and $3,500 per month.

Within six weeks of launching the brand and with little sales traction, he gave up on Lucy. He exhausted his targeting budget. His strategy shifted to cheaper pricing and an altogether new target consumer: college students. He set aside three months of consumer and trend research because Google told him that sorority students were clicking through to his site at a larger proportion than “Lucy’s.”

This is a common refrain. Rather than patiently and diligently speaking to the consumer that the product was designed for, he chose to offload inventory at 40% of the intended product price. This led to lower sales projections, a high rate of product returns, logistical headaches, and a customer acquisition cost that was no longer economically viable. He didn’t make it to the next round of investment. By lacking patience and trust in clear market trends, this founder surrendered the potential for sustainability and the fruits of power laws.  He closed the doors to his company seven months later, writing off his own $90,000 investment. He cited “the data” throughout his short process from zero to zero.

Developing the foundation

推特上的网络史密斯

Investment thesis: seek out DTC brands that can achieve modern luxury KPI: 1/ upper-to-premium price point 2/ avoids promotions 3/ discerning / few wholesale partners 4/ low-to-no performance marketing 5/ polarizing 6/ brand-first 7/ can achieve 8-figure run rate by 18th mo.

But zero to one requires a longer horizon. And ironically, there are few greater analogs for this the development of the Walt Disney Company. Designed by Mr. Disney in 1957, the document below is a mapped promotional system of media, influence, merchandising, and experiential marketing that worked as a collection of nodes. These nodes interacted with the consumer in numerous ways with the intent of promoting a single entity: Disney’s creative talent.

Replace Disney’s emphasis on “Creative Talent” with the “Optimal Customer”, the types of consumers that market-moving fashion brands need to leap into the mainstream. It takes time to map a brand’s promotional system. Consider that Nike reaches consumers in several ways. Consider this week:

  • NBA team sponsorship
  • Social Media (see here)
  • NFL team sponsorship
  • USWMNT uniforms
  • Clever advertising
  • Resale sites like StockX and GOAT
  • NCAA sponsorship
  • Brand storytelling (see here)

Brands can adopt similar vision strategies to scale from niche to eight and nine figures in annual revenue. For apparel retailers: patience, discernment, and vision have never been more important. This is how traditional apparel brands were built. However, in the DTC era, it’s a method that has been set aside for early-stage growth hacks.

Consider Wone [3], the luxury leggings brand. By starting with a small “friends and family” round before taking a round of non-traditional venture capital from Kate McAndrew and Bolt Ventures, quick scale took a back seat to the right scale. This approach allowed founder Kristin Hildebrand to focus on exclusivity. As a result, retailers like Barney’s recognized that their clientele were drawn to the brand. Net-A-Porter and Equinox Hotel followed. From Kayleigh Moore’s Forbes article on her sales strategy:

For WONE founder Kristin Hildebrand, it was Paul Graham’s Y Combinator article “Do Things That Don’t Scale” that sparked the idea to use a limited access model. She decided to build a company that was focused on prioritizing its best customers rather than mass audiences and sales numbers.

To many observers, long-term growth potential in digitally-native fashion is often disguised as a lack of meaningful scale. The right kind of development takes much longer than the wrong kind. From No. 277’s The Power of 100:

Without a strong group of early adopters, you will not efficiently achieve the attention of the masses. The first 100 are the foundation. Without the support of the 100, the masses will not adopt. Made famous by Simon Sinek, heed the diffusion of innovation theory: the early majority will not try something until someone else tries it first. Brands are judged by this early majority.

The alternative to the right kind of growth is scaling exclusively by paid impressions. There can and will be multi-billion dollar apparel brands built in the DTC era but they may not be conventionally built or traditionally funded. While the technologies behind them may not be particularly innovative, the founder’s mentality must be.

Statistics is a regression-based form of math that is founded on the belief that what worked in the past will work in the future. But unlike software and technology, apparel brands cannot be built in a vacuum. Society and its influences are as a part of apparel products as the threads themselves. To build an enduring brand, there must be an accounting for the variables that you won’t find on a dashboard.

Identifying those brands that are capable of transcending online retail is more art than science. And that means that traditional metrics are deceiving. It also means that modern luxury is for the taking.

Read the No. 323 curation here.

报告人:Web Smith |大约 2PM

[1] You can follow Ana on Twitter here.

[2] More on Veblen brands here.

[3] A 2PM investment