Special preview: this week's Future of TV Briefing and Media Briefing

As a loyal reader, we wanted to share a special preview of two of Digiday's weekly briefings. Available exclusively to Digiday+ members, the Future of TV Briefing and the Media Briefing offer analysis of the news and trends affecting publishers and media companies, interviews with key executives, numbers to know and much more. In this week's Future of TV Briefing, senior media editor Tim Peterson explains how free, ad-supported streaming TV platforms like Roku’s The Roku Channel are pushing into original programming and assuming the role of streaming’s cable TV networks. Our newest Media Briefing looks at how publishers are adopting dynamic paywalls to acquire more subscribers and amass more first-party data as they prepare for life after the demise of the third-party cookie. Get a taste of both briefings below and subscribe to Digiday+ to have them delivered straight to your inbox every week. For a limited time, become a Digiday+ member and save 40% on your first three months. This special offer ends Friday, March 26. [SUBSCRIBE]( [Future of TV Briefing: Free, ad-supported streaming TV platforms are cable TV’s streaming heirs]( By Tim Peterson FASTs get with the originals program For all the attention that free, ad-supported streaming TV platforms like Roku’s The Roku Channel and ViacomCBS’s Pluto TV have received over the past few years, that segment of the streaming market has taken a backseat to subscription-based streamers like Disney+ and Netflix. But now that these so-called FAST services are increasingly pushing into original programming, they are putting themselves in a position to attract more attention from audiences as well as producers and advertisers — and to situate themselves as streaming’s version of cable TV networks. The key hits: - Roku’s The Roku Channel, ViacomCBS’ Pluto TV and Fox’s Tubi are making moves to distribute original programming on their platforms. - While not expected to pay as much for shows as Netflix, the platforms’ budgets are expected to resemble cable TV networks, and producers hope to retain more rights for the lower fees. - Original shows should improve the platforms’ standing when vying for advertisers’ streaming dollars. After Amazon’s IMDb TV premiered its first original shows last, The Roku Channel, ViacomCBS’s Pluto TV and Fox’s Tubi are making their own forays into exclusive programming. Since January, Roku has [acquired Quibi’s show library]( as well as the [library and production studio of This Old House]( to fill The Roku Channel. The CTV platform has also posted a [job listing that mentioned plans for a “slate of original content”]( and [debuted its first exclusive series on March 19](. Meanwhile, Pluto TV and Tubi are talking with entertainment companies about original programming for their respective platforms, [according to Bloomberg](. In all three cases, the FAST platforms are considered to still be sorting out their original programming ambitions, according to three entertainment executives who have talked with Roku, Pluto TV and/or Tubi about original programming. Roku, for example, is “having talks about original series, but every time we’ve reached out, [the response from Roku executives has been] ‘We need to see how the Quibi library does first,’” said one entertainment executive. Nonetheless, an image is emerging among show makers and ad buyers of how these FAST platforms fit into the broader streaming landscape. “These apps are becoming cable networks,” said one agency executive. “For Tubi, that’s exactly the mandate: They’re filling in for cable. What would TNT have bought?” said a second entertainment executive who has discussed original programming with the Fox-owned FAST platform. Amazon’s IMDb TV has offered the clearest example of the FASTs’ role as streaming heirs to cable TV networks. The platform has offered cable TV-sized budgets for original shows — low- to mid-six figures for unscripted shows and higher amounts for scripted series — [as Digiday previously reported](. The e-commerce giant’s service is even [rebooting a former TNT show, “Leverage.”]( It is also adopting the traditional TV model of recycling established successful shows by [spinning off Amazon Prime Video’s “Bosch” into a new series]( to debut on the ad-supported streamer. The programming slates from Roku, Pluto TV and Tubi are expected to take a similar form, according to the entertainment executives. Because these platforms are freely available and rely solely on advertising for revenue, they are in the market for shows that will appeal to a broad audience but be relatively inexpensive to produce, the executives said. Although Bloomberg reported that Tubi has discussed paying up to $4 million per episode, the executives interviewed for this article anticipate typical show budgets hewing closer to the low six-figure range. “Cable network budgets,” said the second entertainment executive. In other words, the FAST platforms are in the market for the types of series that have long-littered linear TV’s cable networks but are becoming rarer as TV networks lean on spin-offs of existing shows and subscription-based streamers prioritize splashier series. “It’s a gap that a lot of the streamers are leaving. They’re so focused on the high-end stuff that they’re leaving a lot of room for fun entertainment,” said a third entertainment executive who cited TLC’s “Honey Boo Boo” and History’s “Swamp People” as examples. At first glance, the lower budgets would appear to be less attractive to show makers. But that’s not necessarily the case. Less money upfront from the FAST platforms could mean the opportunity for producers to make more money in the future. Netflix may pay top dollar for shows, but it also demands full perpetual ownership over those shows, eliminating the option for producers to shop a show around internationally or to sign syndication deals with other streaming services or TV networks after a period of time. In contrast, in exchange for the lower fees from the FAST platforms, the entertainment executives expect to retain ownership over their shows with options to eventually license them elsewhere or distribute them on their own properties. “What we like about those platforms is their rights are generally going to be more limited and afford us flexibility,” said the first entertainment executive. Another consideration among show makers is that the FAST platforms may have more incentive than the likes of Netflix to promote their shows, in part, because they need to establish themselves as hubs for original shows and not just receptacles for programming recycled from TV and YouTube. “Netflix is the big monster that eats everything. Every week they have to put out new stuff, and your show might be lost in that whole shuffle. Whereas if you’re the belle of the ball for IMDb TV or Roku, you’re special to them. They will treat your show really well and put it everywhere. That’s attractive to creators right now,” said the second entertainment executive. Moreover, because these platforms are reliant on ad revenue, they not only need to attract large numbers of viewers to sell more ads but they need to offer up attractive programming to entice advertisers to pay more to advertise against those shows. At the moment, advertisers see the FAST platforms as largely supplementary streaming inventory and prioritize spending money with the major ad-supported streamers like Hulu that already air original shows. The FAST platforms’ own original shows could lead ad buyers to update their evaluations. “Them getting into originals will definitely change their standing. But we’re not there yet because we haven’t seen their slates yet,” said the agency executive. Subscribe to Digiday+ below to access the full briefing. Save 40% on your first three months when you become a member by Friday, March 26. [SUBSCRIBE]( [Media Briefing: Publishers are switching up their paywalls]( By Tim Peterson The progression of publishers’ paywalls In 2020, many publishers with paywalls lowered the restrictions on content around big news events like the pandemic and the presidential election to provide a public service. A year later, publishers’ paywalls are changing again. Media companies are using their paywalls to not only grow their subscription base, but reinforce their advertising businesses in preparation for a cookie-less future. The key hits: - Publishers are conducting tests with their paywalls to work out which groups of readers are most likely to subscribe and which are best left to drive traffic and ad revenue, resulting in dynamic paywalls becoming more popular. - Readers will see more registration walls pop up as publishers focus on gathering first-party data. - Small tweaks to the paywall and checkout process can reap considerable lifts in subscription conversions. The paywall will “change dramatically” in the next six months as we head towards the death of the third-party cookie, according to The Los Angeles Times’ chief revenue officer Josh Brandau. Publishers are testing their paywalls to gather first-party data to determine which cohorts of readers are more likely to subscribe and which are better off left to access free content to drive traffic and ad revenue. Many of the publishers Digiday spoke to for this story have evolved their metered paywalls to become dynamic paywalls in the last few years. Instead of the one-size-fits-all metered model that lets people read a set number of articles for free a month, dynamic paywalls let machine learning do most of the work to gather audience data in real-time and algorithmically decide how many free articles a person can access. It gives publishers the ability to constantly test and tweak their paywalls based on that data. “Small changes [to the paywall] can have a big impact,” said Beth Diaz, vp of audience development and analytics at The Washington Post. Three years ago, the Post was conducting one paywall test per quarter; now it has multiple tests running at a time. Five of the seven publishers Digiday spoke to have dynamic paywalls, including The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Quartz, The Wall Street Journal and Barron’s. The Atlantic and MarketWatch have metered paywalls (The Journal and MarketWatch are both owned by Dow Jones). The different paywalls signal what stage a publisher is in its subscription strategy, according to Brandau. The Wall Street Journal, for example, has had a paywall since 1997, but a brand like MarketWatch is newer, so a metered paywall is an “intermediary step that still lets people swim around” before deciding to pay up, said Dow Jones gm of membership Karl Wells. He added, “Every time you cut down the amount of free articles, you sell more, your conversion rate goes up.” No wonder publishers are tightening up their paywalls, leaving less content ungated. The Atlantic found that when it reduced the amount of articles readers could access before hitting the paywall from five per month to three in August 2020, the tighter paywall had no effect on traffic. The publisher is hoping to test a dynamic paywall this year, according to Sam Rosen, svp of growth at The Atlantic. However, dynamic paywalls aren’t the only new barriers that publishers are putting around their content. Readers who have enjoyed a lower barrier to access publishers’ content will soon run into more requests for emails, as publishers plan for an era of registration walls. Registered users who are not yet subscribers can provide publishers with valuable information, such as what kind of topics they’re interested in and how often they’re coming to the site. Many publishers like The LA Times are gathering as much first-party data as possible and easing off their reliance on third-party data before Google [kills the cookie]( by 2022. Registrations are the “primary source of gathering first-party data,” said Rosen. As with their paywalls, publishers are taking a more dynamic approach with their registration walls to determine when to serve a registration wall versus a paywall. There’s a lot of internal testing and data gathering going on behind the scenes: What percentage of people who registered with their email addresses use their free access, and how many in three months have converted to subscribers? Do certain channels or devices affect this? Do registration walls instead of paywalls lower conversation rates? Many of the publishers Digiday talked to are running tests to find out. They are also exploring how to incentivize people to sign up for registered accounts. If a reader provides their email address, maybe they get a week’s free access or five free articles, Diaz at The Post said. Email addresses let publishers reach out and market to readers, too. Even if they’re not willing to pay upfront, they may in the future. Both the advertising and subscriptions sides of publishers’ businesses have their eyes trained on this. First-party data can provide ad teams with “rich and nuanced data” on which types of ads and sponsored content are going to work best on which audience, Rosen said. Different signals can be a good indicator on who is more likely to subscribe to a publisher’s content. The Atlantic has 40 to 50 different signals on a reader’s behavior. For example, the highest propensity reader for the publication is one who has visited the site on three distinct days in a 30-day period, Rosen said. For Dow Jones, those coming from a desktop are more likely to buy a subscription, according to Wells. Daily newsletters are driving subscriptions at Quartz. Those that read the free morning newsletter for about four months are most likely to subscribe, according to Quartz CEO Zach Seward. Other small tweaks can sow big rewards. In mid-2020, The Washington Post conducted “toggle tests.” The option to pay monthly or annually for a subscription was toggled on the product page, rather than at the end of the checkout process, resulting in a 10% lift in subscription starts during the two-week test, according to The Post. It reduced “cognitive overload and friction,” Diaz said. But sometimes friction can be a good thing. In another test, people were asked to give their email addresses as part of the checkout process. Though this caused a short-term bump in the abandon rate of carts (0.5% decline in conversions), The Post was able to reach out to those people and encourage them to return to those carts, according to Diaz. Forty percent of those who gave their emails later subscribed. The trick is getting “that sweet spot where you are not limiting too much of the consumption of your quality [editorial] content but some kind of friction is in place that tries to get people to subscribe,” said Brandau. — Sara Guaglione Subscribe to Digiday+ below to access the full briefing. Save 40% on your first three months when you become a member by Friday, March 26. [SUBSCRIBE]( [Facebook]([Twitter]([Instagram]([LinkedIn]( Digiday Media One Liberty Plaza | 9th Floor New York, NY 10006 You received this email because you're signed up to receive updates about Digiday editorial products. Change your preferences below to stop receiving them. Unsubscribing will remove you from ALL Digiday email. [Share]( [Tweet]( [Share]( [Forward]( [Preferences]( | [Unsubscribe](