Streaming is full of twin niche services. This is because more than one person can come up with the same good idea at the same time. One good idea in streaming is the concept of a streaming service that offers general entertainment channels while avoiding the more expensive sports, news, and broadcast networks.
For all of the hype and interest around sports programming and the popularity of ESPN and its family of networks, there is a sizable population that wakes up on Superbowl Sunday and considers it no different than any other day that ends in a y. That is why the services Philo and FRNDLY exist. They allow people to choose a service that gives them entertainment channels and lifestyle programming without having to charge for things that their audiences could care less about. But there is one problem with the model.
The two main players in that space have maybe 2 million subscribers combined. Pilo has 1 million and FRNDLY has between 750k-1 million. They also share many of the same channels and from anecdotal evidence a lot of cross-subscribers.
FRNDLY TV starts at $7.99. Yeah, for what used to be the cost of one value meal you can get a live TV service that features channels from Hallmark, Lifetime, Channels from A&E Networks and more, with a strong emphasis on what is referred to as heartland programming. This would be channels that offer classic westerns and sitcoms from the 50s-70s.
Philo also offers channels from A&E Networks, Lifetime, and Hallmark. It differentiates itself by also offering channels owned by Paramount/Viacom like Comedy Central, MTV and Nickelodeon as well as AMC Networks channels like AMC, and BBC America. At $27.00 per month, Philo is considerably more expensive, likely because it offers more channels, but it is very much the same concept.
If the services were combined the new company give customers options by offering more than one package. FRNDLY already does this with 3 different price points. Basic $7.99/mo, Classic $9.99/mo and Premium $11.99/mo. A combined concept could start at $11.99 with other tiers adding the bigger programming packages. The max deal would essentially combine all of the offered options.
Why do we suggest this?
The market for Philo and FRNDLY is viable, but it is not as large as the one for more expansive streaming services. There are somewhere around 15-16 million people paying for more hefty cable replacements across four services led by YouTube TV.
- YTTV 8 million
- Hulu with live TV 4.5 million
- Sling TV 1.9 million
- Fubo TV 1.85 million.
We should expect to see the market for entertainment/lifestyle streamers to grow as the costs associated with more expansive services balloon. Most of the services listed above launched for prices in the low $40s and have steadily increased prices to almost $80.00 per month. Within those four services, there are probably users who were swept up before they understood the marketplace options. They may have signed up for YTTV or Hulu just because they were already familiar with the brands but still don’t watch sports any more than they did before. They may jump at the chance to get something cheaper. A combined service would avoid the confusion of comparing very similar but decidedly different channel lineups. That can end with a customer saying “I’ll just stick with what I have”.
The one big weakness
The advantage that YTTV and Hulu have is that they offer the major broadcast channels ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX. On its website Philo for instance says that its customers use antennas to get access to local affiliates. Again local affiliates charge providers for what would be a free signal over the air if they are streamed. The fees add up to $11-$12 to a bill. But some people consider the cost worth the trouble of not depending on an antenna or in many cases don’t realize they can get good coverage with one. The Streaming Advisor highly recommends trying out an antenna as part of any cord-cutting solution.
Cord cutting has grown year in and year out, but I just don’t think the market can support so many different options as users look to cut costs over time. And having one place to go for the audience that wants lower costs and will not miss access to sports instead of two simply makes too much sense in the end. We will see though if I’m right.
