The Battle of YouTube, TV and Netflix

The ongoing process of digitization and the spread of broadband internet technology considerably increased the option for consumers to watch moving audiovisual contents. That traditional TV—irrespective of its transmission media (terrestrial, cable, satellite, online, etc.)—is now facing video-on-demand services changes the competitive landscape. This may be good news, since in many national television markets (including Germany), concentration and (a lack of) competition have been continuous concerns (Budzinski & Wacker 2007; Bundeskartellamt 2011a, 2011b, 2015; OFCOM 2018). However, the competitive interrelations between TV and VoD as well as among different types of VoD services are subject to controversial discussion^{Footnote 3}. Thus, what are the theoretical reasons about factors influencing the competitive interrelation of different channels transmitting audiovisual contents (TV, different types of VoD)?

Fundamental differences in content

Fundamental differences in the type of content that is broadcasted may limit the intensity of competition between Netflix, YouTube, and TV. An often-raised objection claims a service such as YouTube (AVoD) does not compete with the likes of traditional TV and PVoDs, such as Netflix, because its content is predominantly non-professional and/or non-commercial (inter alia, Bruns 2008; Ritzer & Jurgenson 2010; Bundeskartellamt 2011a, 2015; Dennhardt 2014; Fuchs 2014). According to this view, YouTube mainly represents a social media platform, where users upload content for other users (cat videos, fail videos, etc.), i.e., a sort of user-exchange of contents, and professional contents from business companies are in the clear minority. The nature of YouTube’s early ‘user generated content’ (from users for users) has changed a lot and initial ‘private’ uploaders professionalized towards being active content providers, offering regular video uploads regarding specific topics according to the channel’s media concept (Döring 2014; Budzinski and Gaenssle 2020). Notwithstanding the still existing type of non-professional content, this trend of professionalization points towards the significant turnovers and revenues that content providers such as so-called social media stars^{Footnote 4} earn through participation on YouTube’s advertisement revenues as well as through product placements—with the latter further emphasizing the commercial nature of the content supply (Budzinski and Gaenssle 2020; Gaenssle and Budzinski 2021). Nowadays, a significant share, if not most of the views on YouTube, fall on commercial content, most of which is professionally produced; the most popular 20% receive 97% of views (Ding et al. 2011) and 10–30% of videos have fewer than ten views (Chowdhury & Makaroff 2013).

A related aspect refers to content differences in terms of the extent of exclusive and/or original content. While this used to be a domain of traditional television, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video for instance, as well as new players, such as Disney + and Apple TV + , aim at attracting their audience especially with original (own produced) or exclusive content (e.g., Netflix with House of Cards or Orange is the New Black) (inter alia, Aguiar and Waldfogel 2018; Benes 2019).

Content differences corresponding to different purposes of usage

Content differences between the different types of services that relate to different consumption purposes represent a second aspect. While YouTube is known to predominantly provide shorter videos (e.g., short clips, music videos & social media star entertainment), both Netflix and TV focus on longer pieces, such as movies, series, and shows. These content differences may go along with different ways of consumption. For quick information (specific tutorials/help, etc.) or social network elements (i.e., follow stars or friends, sharing content), YouTube meets the consumers’ preferences, whereas for full-length video content the choice falls on the other types of services. Therefore, YouTube may be more relevant for purposes, such as bypassing waiting or traveling times, covering smaller breaks and shorter entertainment spaces, etc., whereas PVoDs, such as Netflix and TV, are preferred for filling an evening of entertainment or a free Sunday afternoon, for instance. As such, the two service types would rather complement each other than compete with each other. These differences in contents and consumption could reflect in service usages different times of day: Netflix and TV should be the prime-time competitors according to this view, whereas YouTube is more a media for “in-between” moments throughout the rest of the day. However, with the professionalization of AVoD content, average video length is developing towards traditional video formats. A study conducted by the search engine Pex (Turek 2019) shows that average YouTube videos are 11.7 min long (December 2018), with popular categories reaching up to 25 min on average (gaming 24.7 min; film & animation 19.2 min). Moreover, serial consumption of videos and so-called binge watching (Rubenking et al. 2018; Gaenssle & Kunz-Kaltenhäuser 2020) allows consumers to watch hours of video content without interruption—a phenomenon that is further fueled by individualized recommendation systems and auto-play modes (for instance, for music videos).^{Footnote 5} Independent of the single video length, this may result in hours of successive consumption; accumulating to a total consumption length, which is easily comparable to full-length movies. These developments show converging trends and increasing comparability of services.

Linearity, devices, and social network elements

VoD, in general, differs from TV in that there is no fixed program schedule as a take-it-or-leave offer for consumers. Instead, VoD consumers can watch all available contents whenever they want and compile their “program” by themselves. The media literature calls the schedule-bound service linear and the on-demand type non-linear (inter alia, Berman et al. 2009; Kazakova & Cauberghe 2013; Steemers 2014; van den Bulck & Enli 2014; Simons 2015; Enli & Syvertsen 2016). A further difference may relate to the device of usage. One expects consumers of traditional television programs or Netflix (PVoD) to prefer large television screens, while YouTube-style AVoD services are mostly watched on mobile devices (laptops, tablets and, particularly, smartphones). However, due to the possibility of downloading content to mobile devices and watching it ‘on the road’, consumers may start to watch their favorite shows—regardless of the original service (AVoD, PVoD or TV)—while, e.g., traveling to work. Eventually, social networking elements, such as commenting, sharing or liking content, may represent a differentiator. This social media function is usually not possible for linear TV, although broadcasters recently started to increase audience engagement, e.g., in live shows with audience questions or the possibility of writing (WhatsApp) messages. Nevertheless, due to the nature of the non-linear availability of content, audience ratings, comments, and shares are possible on AVoD and PVoD. Especially AVoD services such as YouTube or Twitch entail networking elements and active ‘below video commenting behavior’. However, former non-digital players in the market also adapt to new possibilities and try to increase audience engagement.

The economics of attention

Overall, the different services seem to converge and try to use all possible ways to increase the time recipients spent consuming their content. Attention may be a scarce resource and, in the face of information overflow due to omnipresent mobile access to the internet, a relevant one for online content consumption (Falkinger 2008; Anderson and da Palma 2012; Evans 2013; Boik et al. 2017; Gaenssle 2021). According to the economics of attention, all content providers compete for the scarce attention of the users who can spend every minute of their attention only once. Therefore, if a user opts for watching YouTube videos, she cannot spend this attention to a Netflix serial anymore and vice versa (opportunity costs). Given that many users spend a relevant time of any day for working, sleeping, and other activities (childcare, sports, etc.), competition for the remaining time for watching audiovisual online content may be intense. Furthermore, even though there are differences in detail, a large part of content and consumption regarding all three types of services is about entertainment and, thus, referring to the same underlying intention or want of the consumer.

From this theoretical perspective, the case for TV and Netflix-style services being in competition with each other appears to be straightforward. In a way, services such as Netflix may be viewed to take the place of TV, entailing the advantages of traditional TV and adding the luxury to be non-linear, so that users do not depend on a given program schedule anymore, but can cherry pick their times and contents (Tefertiller 2018; Budzinski and Lindstädt-Dreusicke 2020; Fudurić et al. 2020). Therefore, it may mainly be a generation effect separating the two types of services with older generations just being slower to adapt to a superior new good (Lindstädt-Dreusicke and Budzinski 2020).

However, while enhanced choice options will mostly benefit consumers’ preferences, there can be exceptions to that. Choosing does require investing cognitive capacity and in some situations in life—like the end of an exhausting day, where someone just looks for some relaxing entertainment before going to sleep or background entertainment without active engagement (like radio consumption is often done)—users may not want to spend cognitive resources on low-involvement routine consumption (Vanberg 2002; Budzinski 2003). Then, a linear service such as TV may be superior, since it demands less cognitive engagement and decision effort.^{Footnote 6} Moreover, regular television consumers might enjoy the feeling of being connected to society, watching what other people nationwide are also watching, i.e., networking and commonality effects as well as cultural inclusion by, e.g., national popular TV shows. Finally, the bundling of information and entertainment, e.g., news and prime-time movie as a bundle, may be valued by consumers, and be very tiresome to self-compile (or even impossible due to lack of supply) on PVoD and AVoD.

Notwithstanding, the newer services entail a tool that may serve a similar purpose. The algorithm-based recommendation service of Netflix, YouTube and others, may substitute for the linear program schedule in cases of routine and low-involvement consumption. Based on individual data, recommender systems provide content suggestions for (indecisive) consumers. To simplify the demand-process and lower the cost of active consumption decisions, services use auto-play modes (immediately starting the next video), content suggestions, trailers, etc. (see for a detailed analysis Budzinski et al. 2021).

References

Aguiar L, Waldfogel J (2018) Netflix: global hegemon or facilitator of frictionless digital trade? J Cult Econ 42(3):419–445

Anderson SP, de Palma A (2012) Competition for attention in the information (overload) age. Rand J Econ 43(1):1–25

Audience Project (2019) Insights 2019, Traditional TV, online video & streaming, a study by the Audi- ence Project, ed. by Rune Werliin, 1–55. https://www.audienceproject.com/wp-content/uploads/ audienceproject_study_tv_video_streaming.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2020

Benes R (2019) Users still demand licensed content from OTT platforms, on eMarketer, 10.05.2019, https://www.emarketer.com/content/users-still-demand-licensed-content-from-ott-platforms (accessed 03 March 2020).

Berman SJ, Battino B, Shipnuck L, Neus A (2009) The end of advertising as we know it. In: Gerbarg D (ed) Television goes digital. Springer, New York, pp 29–56

Boik A, Greenstein SM, Prince J (2017) The empirical economics of online attention. Kelley School of Business Research Paper No. 22427.

Briglauer W, Dürr N, Falck O, Hüschelrath K (2019) Does state aid for broadband deployment in rural areas close the digital and economic divide? Inf Econ Policy 46(3):68–85

Bruns A (2008) Blogs, wikipedia, second life, and beyond: from production to produsage. Peter Lang, New York

Budzinski O (2003) Cognitive rules, institutions, and competition. Const Polit Econ 14(3):215–235 Budzinski O, Gaenssle S (2020) The economics of social media (super-)stars: an empirical investigation

of stardom and success on YouTube. J Media Econ 31(3–4):75–95

Budzinski O, Kuchinke B (2020) Industrial organization of media markets and competition policy. In: von Rimscha B (ed) Economics and management of communication. DeGruyter, Berlin, pp 21–45

Budzinski O, Lindstädt-Dreusicke N (2020) Antitrust policy in video-on-demand markets: the case of Germany. J Antitrust Enforc 8(3):606–626

Budzinski O, Wacker K (2007) The prohibition of the proposed springer-ProSiebenSat.1-merger: how much economics in German merger control? J Compet Law Econ 3(2):281–306

Budzinski O, Gaenssle S, Lindstädt-Dreusicke N (2021) Data (R)evolution—the economics of algorith- mic search & recommender services. In: Sabine B (ed) Handbook of digital business ecosystems. Elgar, Cheltenham

Bundeskartellamt (2011b) Bundeskartellamt Institutes Cartel Proceedings to Examine Video-on-demand Platform of Public Service Broadcasters, press release 2011–11–28, http://www.bundeskartellamt. de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2011/28_11_2011_Germanys-Gold.html;jsess ionid=6D9A2CC003444E5ECBEDEAC771F19CE8.1_cid371?nn=3591568 (accessed 28 Oct 2019).

Bundeskartellamt (2011a) Beschluss in dem Verwaltungsverfahren ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG / RTL interactive GmbH, Aktenzeichen B6–94/10, http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Entsc heidung/DE/Entscheidungen/Fusionskontrolle/2011/B6-94-10.pdf? blob=publicationFile&v=3 (accessed 28 Oct 2019).

Bundeskartellamt (2015) Case summary: ARD and ZDF online platform “Germany’s Gold”, B6–81/11– 2, https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidung/EN/Fallberichte/Kartellverbot/2015/

B6-81-11.pdf?  blob=publicationFile&v=2 (accessed 26 Dec 2019).

Chen Y-NK (2019) Competitions between OTT TV platforms and traditional television in Taiwan: a Niche analysis. Telecommunications Policy 43(9):1–10

Chowdhury SA, Makaroff D (2013) Popularity growth patterns of YouTube videos: a category-based study. In: Krempels KH, Stocker A (eds) Proceedings of WEBIST 2013: 8th International Confer- ence on Web Information Systems and Technologies, 233–242.

Dennhardt S (2014) User-generated content and its impact on branding, how user and communities create and manage brands in social media. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Ding Y, Du Y, Hu Y, Liu Z, Wang L, Ross K, Ghose A (2011) Broadcast Yourself: understanding you- tube uploaders. In: Patrick T, Walter WW (eds) IMC 2011, Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIG- COMM on Internet Measurement Conference, New York: ACM, pp 361–370

Döring N (2014) Professionalisierung und Kommerzialisierung auf YouTube. Merz Medien + Erziehung 58(4):24–31

Enli G, Syvertsen T (2016) The end of television—again! How TV is still influenced by cultural factors in the age of digital intermediaries. Media Commun 4(3):142–153

Etherington D (2020) Netflix tests a programmed linear TV and movie channel in France, Techcrunch, 06.11.2020,   https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/06/netflix-tests-a-programmed-linear-tv-and-movie-

channel-in-france/ (accessed 18 June 2021).

Evans DS (2013) Attention rivalry among online platforms. J Compet Law Econ 9(2):313–357

Falkinger J (2008) Limited attention as a scarce resource in information-rich economies. Econ J 118:1596–1620

Fisher B (2019) UK digital video 2019, A rich provider landscape drives up digital viewership, on eMar- keter, 19.09.2019, https://www.emarketer.com/content/uk-digital-video-2019 (accessed 13 Feb

2020).

Froeb LM, Werden GJ (2008) Unilateral competitive effects of horizontal mergers. In: Buccirossi P (ed) Handbook of antitrust economics. The MIT Press, Boston, pp 43–104

Fuchs C (2014) Digital prosumption labour on social media in the context of the capitalist regime of time.

Time Soc 23(1):97–123

Fudurić M, Malthouse EC, Lee MH (2020) Understanding the drivers of cable TV cord shaving with big data. J Media Bus Stud 17(2):172–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2019.1701363

Gaenssle S, Kunz-Kaltenhäuser P (2020) What drives binge-watching? An economic theory and analysis of impact factors. Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 26 (138).

Gaenssle S, Budzinski O (2021) Stars in social media: new light through old windows? J Media Bus Stud 18(2):79–105

Gaenssle S (2021) Attention economics of instagram stars: #Instafame and sex sells? Ilmenau Discussion Papers, Vol. 27(150)

Herrmann S (2019) Goldmedia studie. Pay-VoD-Markt in Deutschland klar verteilt. W&V Online, 30.10.2019, https://www.wuv.de/medien/pay_vod_markt_in_deutschland_klar_verteilt (accessed 14

Feb 2020).

Kaplow L, Shapiro C (2007) Antitrust. In: Polinsky AM, Shavell S (eds) Handbook of law and econom- ics. Elsevier, North Holland, pp 1073–1225

Kazakova S, Cauberghe V (2013) Media convergence and media multitasking. In: Diehl S, Karmasin M (eds) Media convergence management. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 177–188

Keating B, Willig RD (2015) Unilateral effects. In: Blair RD, Daniel Sokol D (eds) The oxford handbook of international antitrust economics, vol 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 466–508

Kerber W, Schwalbe U (2008) Economic principles of competition law. In: Säcker FJ et al (eds) Competi- tion law: European community practice and procedure. Sweet & Maxwell, London, pp 202–393

El Khaoudi Y (2018) Deutscher Streaming-Markt: Netflix überholt Sky – Amazon thront auf Platz 1. Chip Online, 21.10.2018, https://www.chip.de/news/Deutscher-Streaming-Markt-Netflix-ueberholt- Sky-Amazon-thront-auf-Platz-1_150896945.html (accessed 16 Feb 2020).

Krei A (2019) Geschäftszahlen 2018 vorgelegt, RTL Group will 350 Mio. Euro in Streaming investieren. DWDL,  13.03.2019,  https://www.dwdl.de/nachrichten/71413/rtl_group_will_350_mio_euro_in_

streaming_investieren/?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=&utm_term= (accessed 06

Feb 2020)

Kupferschmitt T (2018) Onlinevideo-Reichweite und Nutzungsfrequenz wachsen, Altersgefälle bleibt, Ergebnisse der ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2018. Media Perspektiven 9(2018):427–437

Lindstädt-Dreusicke N, Budzinski O (2020) The video-on-demand market in Germany—dynamics, mar- ket structure and the (special) role of YouTube. J Media Manag Entrepren 2(1):108–123

McKenzie J, Crosby P, Cox J, Collins A (2019) “Experimental evidence on demand for “on-demand” entertainment. J Econ Behav Organ 161:98–113

Ofcom (2018) Public service broadcasting in the digital age, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/ data/assets/ pdf_file/0026/111896/Public-service-broadcasting-in-the-digital-age.pdf (accessed 26 Dec 2019).

Pauker M (2021) Netflix startet linearen Sender international, W&V Online, 25.01.2021, https://www. wuv.de/medien/netflix_startet_linearen_sender_international (accessed 18 June 2021).

Prince J, Greenstein S (2017) Measuring consumer preferences for video content provision via cord-cut- ting behavior. J Econ Manag Strateg 26(2):293–317

Revilla MA, Saris WE, Krosnick JA (2014) Choosing the number of categories in agree-disagree scales.

Sociol Methods Res 43(1):73–97

Richter F (2019) The generation gap in TV Consumption, https://www.statista.com/chart/15224/daily-tv- consumption-by-us-adults/ (accessed 13 Feb 2020)

Ritzer G, Jurgenson N (2010) Production, consumption, prosumption: the nature of capitalism in the age of the digital prosumer. J Consum Cult 10(1):13–36

Rubenking B, Bracken C, Sandoval J, Rister A (2018) Defining new viewing behaviours: what makes and motivates TV binge-watching? Int J Dig Televis 9(1):69–85

Shelton S, McKaig N, Mendez CG (2016) Television viewership among millennials: an analysis of mil- lennials usage and preferences of on-demand & broadcast television services. Association of Mar- keting Theory and Practice Proceedings 2016. 7. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/amtp- proceedings_2016/7 (accessed 05 June 2021).

Simons N (2015) TV drama as a social experience: an empirical investigation of the social dimensions of watching TV drama in the age of non-linear television. Communications 40(2):219–236

Spilker HS, Ask K, Hansen M (2020) The new practices and infrastructures of participation: how the popularity of Twitchtv challenges old and new ideas about television viewing. Inf Commun Soc 23(4):605–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1529193

Statista (2018) Netflix Is Americans’ Platform of Choice for TV Content, https://www.statista.com/chart/ 14559/americans-favorite-tv-platforms/, accessed 9th October 2019.

Statista (2020) Durchschnittliche tägliche Fernsehdauer in Deutschland nach Altersgruppen in den Jahren 2018 und 2019, based on AGF, GfK https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/152389/umfrage/ durchschnittliche-fernsehdauer-pro-tag/ (accessed 13 Feb 2020).

Steemers J (2014) Selling television: addressing transformations in the international distribution of televi- sion content. Media Ind J 2:44–49

Stöhr A, Noskova V, Kunz-Kaltenhäuser P, Gaenssle S, Budzinski O (2020) Happily ever after? Vertical and horizontal mergers in the US media industry. World Compet 43(1):135–161

Tefertiller A (2018) Media substitution in cable cord-cutting: the adoption of web-streaming television. J Broadcast Electron Media 62(3):390–407

Turek R (2019) What content dominates on YouTube?, https://blog.pex.com/what-content-dominates-on- youtube-390811c0932d, (accessed 28 Oct 2019).

Van den Bulck H, Enli GS (2014) Flow under pressure: television scheduling and continuity techniques as victims of media convergence? Televis New Media 15(5):449–452

Vanberg V (2002) rational choice vs. program-based behaviour—alternative theoretical approaches and their relevance for the study of institutions. Ration Soc 14(1):7–54

WV (2019) Bilanz für 2018 und Ausblick, RTL Group verliert im TV – und investiert nun ins Streaming, in W&V online, 14.03.2019, https://www.wuv.de/medien/rtl_group_verliert_im_tv_und_investiert_ nun_ins_streaming (accessed 06 Feb 2020).

YouTube Official Blog (2018) Introducing YouTube Premium, https://youtube.googleblog.com/2018/05/ introducing-youtube-premium.html, (accessed 2019–10–28).

Zellner A (1962) An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggre- gation bias. J Am Stat Assoc 57:348–368

Zellner A (1963) Estimators for seemingly unrelated regression equations: some exact finite sample results. J Am Stat Assoc 58:977–992

Zellner A, Huang DS (1962) Further properties of efficient estimators for seemingly unrelated regression equations. Int Econ Rev 3(3):300–313