Remember the heyday of broadcast television when two or three networks decided how we spent our time? Suddenly the networks have lost their power, broken by the choice the internet offers as the end of mass television nears.
The once-struttingly proud free-to-air model is paddling hard to keep its head above water by holding on to an increasingly niche positioning in sport and news. But sport is wobbling and news sources are becoming more diverse.
As audiences fragment, ads are following. The most recent January figures suggest television ad spend was down 19.2% on last year. (Although last year was boosted by all those pre-election Morrison government puffs apparently.)
According to the latest government report on what we watch — and where we watch it — the once ubiquitous commercial television signals slid to just the third most accessed form of content on the box, well behind subscription and free streaming services. The result? We’re all watching different programming at different times — and prefer to pay for the convenience.
It’s fragmenting culture. According to Benedict Evans’ “The New Gatekeepers” released last week, there’s no such thing as a mass hit any more. In the 1950s, the highest rating shows reached two-thirds of households; in the 1980s, still about a third. Now? The most popular shows reach fewer than one in 10.
It’s not just the dense inventory on Netflix or Disney. It’s YouTube, too, which Evans estimates has similar total viewing numbers to Netflix and, with MrBeast, one of the top 15 streaming shows.
Looks like while we were busy worrying about COVID-19, we passed the pivot point. Broadcast television is no longer the preferred delivery channel of a mass culture. Now it’s just one of many drivers of the increasingly fragmented cultures of the 21st century.
According to last week’s report, only about half of us (53%) watched commercial television programs in the past seven days the way we’re expected to — when and where the networks decide. Even fewer (41%) watched the public broadcasters. But there’s mixed news for the ABC and SBS. The number of people watching their on-demand offerings — iview and SBS on Demand — is at 34%. How long until more people are regularly on iview than on the ABC free-to-air channels?
It’s a global trend. Evans estimates that in the US time spent on linear television is down by a third since 2015.
It’s time-shift meets exploding inventory as people decide when and what they watch. Now it looks like just about the only thing we want to watch “live” are things that aren’t easily able to be substituted and that we can’t readily time-shift, either because they lose currency (news and current affairs) or because they’re ruined by spoilers (sport or reality television).
The highest-ranked content-based reason for watching free-to-air is news: about 60% say it’s an “essential” or “main reason” for watching. This fits news consumption figures showing television is the main source of news for about 40%.
It’s a preference that skews old. The report says younger audiences are “significantly” less likely to even have a TV in their house.
Despite the big spends by the networks on sports rights, free-to-air sport watching is down, with a drift to streaming either through sports specialists such as Kayo or Optus Sports or the digital services of the commercial broadcasters.
All the data points to a continued drift from the heyday of linear television: most sets are now smart TVs or have some streaming plug-in (most common: Google’s Chromecast). More TVs are connected to the internet than are connected to broadcast aerials. Just half of all TVs turn on showing a free-to-air channel and only 41% of viewers chose a free-to-air channel as their first content.
It’s not just time-shifting and the embrace of choice. It’s advertising avoidance. About 70% of viewers with a paid subscription say it’s the essential or main reason for subscribing to streaming content. It explains why Netflix’s advertising trial is struggling. Don’t expect to see it rolled out in mature markets like Australia any time soon.
Meanwhile, expect the streaming side hustles of free-to-air broadcasters to become more like the main game. 9Now, for example, is already bringing in about one-eighth of the network’s television revenues. Expect, too, the free-to-air service to be even more of a promo for related streaming services, like Nine with Stan, or Ten with Paramount+.
And the ABC? As its viewers shift to iview, management and board — and government — need to be asking: how much changes when streaming becomes the corporation’s primary product? And what will that cost?
Do you still watch free-to-air TV? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
