Embedded Files
This short note contrasts competitive positions in the streaming marketspace, comparing 2017 versus 2020 performance, looking at the Emmy awards each of the most relevant producers snatched. It is not the only way of looking at success, but it's certainly a "performance-based" way of looking at this issue, trying to anchor the metric on somewhat objective measures like awards won and content spend.
HBO has ceded its subscriber sovereignty to Netflix and Amazon Prime Video
HBO has ceded its subscriber sovereignty to Netflix and Amazon Prime Video
For years, HBO led the pack in terms of absolute global number of subscribers. However, their customer basis has now stagnated (142m in 2018 was the last reported figure, with some speculation getting to 155m adding HBO Max initial numbers), while its streaming counterparts have seen explosive growth. HBO's reluctance to let go of its profitable, cable-anchored model has clearly put a cap on its future growth, as cable-cutting trend accelerates. As of year-end 2020, Netflix was reaching 200m and Amazon (no data since 2019) also lurking around that figure. Hulu is clearly a smaller, niche player, but showing consistent growth. Disney will also be joining the bunch in the next analysis.
However, HBO still managed to Outperform Streamers at the Emmys
However, HBO still managed to Outperform Streamers at the Emmys
In spite of its dwindling strategy and uncertain subscriber numbers, HBO has not lost its mojo (yet?). In 2017, it had a great year taking home 29 statues, meaning a 26% win rate out of its 111 nominations. It was beaten (in terms of win rate) only by Hulu, who took home 10 Emmys representing a 56% win rate out of its 18 nominations. Netflix managed 20 wins out of its 91 noms. 2020 was a similar story: HBO took home 30 Emmys out of its 107 noms (28% win rate), while Netflix got 21 out of an impressive 160 noms (13% win rate). Amazon and Hulu took home 4 and 1 prizes, respectively.
HBO spends much less per subscriber - resulting in a lower cost per award
HBO spends much less per subscriber - resulting in a lower cost per award
One way to measure "commercial success" of TV shows is to divide its parent company's content spend among the awards it wins. It can show whether a company is being "efficient" in its spend, i.e., if its content budget is spent in relevant shows which critics acclaim. Once again, HBO wins here: with a mucho lower content spend (very secretive but in the range of u$s 2.5-3.5 billion annually) we have already seen it took home more prizes both in 2017 and in 2020, resulting in a cost per Emmy of u$s 86k in 2017 and a much higher u$s 195k in 2020. Netflix spends many more billions in content (approx. u$s 17 billion in 2020), and since it took home less awards, it means it has been less efficient in terms of cost per win: u$s 445k in 2017 and a whopping u$s 1.1 billion in 2020. Hulu's 1 win in 2020 makes it the "least efficient" contender, with a total cost of u$s 3.9 billion (all of its content spend!), with Amazon close by with u$s 2.3 billion for its 4 wins.
TV continues to be a tough battleground. 2020's lockdown has accelerated adoption of streaming services and has brought increased competition to the ecosystem, via Disney+ but also Peacock, Paramount+ and HBO Max. The pandemic's limited content generation and fewer shows produced (first reduction in total shows in many years) means 2021 will be that much more intense in terms of positioning. Stay tuned - or connected.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse