The Argument for Live Content

Yesterday, I argued that the future of content would be Live, Limited, and Surprise. Arguing that the future of content is Live is both the easiest and most difficult argument of the Live Limited Surprise trio. The problem is that we often see live as unscripted, and think of, say, reality TV as live content. However, I would argue that reality TV was more of a fad partly because it was too scripted, but also because it was not interactive enough. Now that social media is more accessible and ubiquitous, it can fuse together with live content to create destination content that can’t necessarily be tape-delayed for later consumption. Good luck, for example, properly following a conference hashtag a day after it occurred. The easy example of popular live content is sports, which almost singlehandedly keeps broadcast TV relevant and cable subscriptions afloat.

But also consider music, where tours and live performances (more a Chinese phenomenon via live-streaming apps) are where many musicians actually make their money. The trend towards live music will continue as long as Spotify and others underpay musicians for streaming. But musicians have come forward to complain how lengthy travel tours wear them out and hurt their creative process. So why not increasingly livestream instead, with quirky features such as Marshmello’s live concert in Fortnite?

Now note that in livestreaming sports, music, and other content, there are wildly differing levels of interactivity with audience, micro-transaction opportunities, and also social media commentary and capture. Part of the difficulty in live content is that there will be a period of discovery and adjustment, and many content producers are already signed to content deals with more traditional outlets. However, traditional companies are scrambling to keep up with Netflix. I argue that one way to distinguish themselves will be live one-offs. Rather than a taped comedy show, why not instead offer livestreaming comedy, as an example? But one can argue that, say, an NBC isn’t going to take too many chances with their new streaming service.

So how do we get to even more live content than before, if traditional outlets will be resistant? For one, consider dark horses like DAZN, who hired a former ESPN exec (John Skipper) and is pushing to sign boxers to multi-fight deals. These companies don’t want to take on Netflix or Disney/ESPN head-on, not quite yet, but are looking for unusual business models with which to challenge existing companies with large content libraries. Because those existing companies have already signed available talent to long-term deals, the DAZN-type companies will have to find a new angle.

And I don’t need to mention Twitch, you’ve thought of it already. I hypothesize that a content provider will put a large bet on live content (I’d guess Amazon, but most likely a wildcard), as a way to break into the Youtube/Netflix dominated content market. Oddly enough, Tinder, of all sites, went with a pseudo-live interactive Choose Your Own Adventure called Swipe Night. Those who played the game could then discuss their choices with others on the app, which created a natural icebreaker and shared experience.

Finally, consider the smaller operators, the content creator who now exclusively uses Youtube. The content creator has to put in a great deal of time and money polishing videos, only to receive inconsistent money from Youtube, or even be demonetized on a whim. The right site, that offers a clear monetization model and support, could get a foothold by switching from canned to live content as a differentiator. And wouldn’t you know it, Google rivals Facebook and Amazon have poured money into live content (Facebook Live, Twitch, and Instagram Stories, to name three).

Google itself is more prepared for a shift to live than you may think. You may not know as well that Youtube has had a curated Live channel for years: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4R8DWoMoI7CAwX8_LjQHig/featured . Or that Youtube already offers paid “Super Chat” and other access to creator during said Livestreams: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7288782 . Youtube doesn’t want to commit fully to live (and why would they, at least not yet), but the foundations are definitely in place to pivot as needed. I flicked on a random basketball game on Youtube featuring two small colleges, only to see them seamlessly inserting Twitter comments from fans of the “Go Chicago State” variety. The tools are in place, and one could argue they have been for years (RIP, Ustream and a host of livestream sites from 2008-2013 or so). What has been lacking is a coherent ecosystem with proper payment, moderated interaction, and other key features. My argument is that we’re closer than we may realize to that ecosystem, if not already there.

Tomorrow, I’ll make perhaps the most difficult of the three arguments: that the market may pivot away from an ad-driven, max eyeballs model to a more limited, niche approach. But first, any thoughts on today’s hypothesis?