The popularity of podcasts has survived a rotating cast of distribution platforms, devices, competition and (now) revenue models. In 2006, just 22% of adults in the U.S. knew about podcasting. By 2022, that number approached 80%.

The growth has understandably caught the attention of advertisers.

In 2021, podcast advertising revenue increased by 72% YoY to $1.4b and is expected to surpass $4b by 2024. To put this growth rate into perspective, the total internet advertising revenue market increased by 35% in 2021.

We can attribute much of that growth to podcasts’ popularity in society, but we must also credit the ad types that continue to prove their worth, namely, those of the host-read variety.

The recent growth is great, but where do we go from here, and will premium podcasts play a central role?

Slate and Luminary Shake-up the Podcast Revenue Model

From the early days, when you had to make your episode selection with a click wheel, podcasts have primarily been supported in two ways: Advertising within each podcast episode and fan support through platforms like Patreon. 

That’s still a thing. Today, brands love the direct-response nature of podcast ads and their ability to hyper-target niche audiences authentically.

A study from Nielsen found that host-read podcast ads were “significantly more likely to be described by respondents as authentic and believable, and less likely to be felt as forced.” 

But as podcasting truly gained steam, two media companies set their sights on challenging the underlying model—one with a platform for podcasters and the other with premium content for consumers. 

Slate: Slate is a magazine on the web and podcast network. The company’s been producing podcasts for years, but in 2019, it launched Supporting Cast, which promises to let podcast brands “shine” while “handling payments, private feed delivery, analytics, and customer support so you don’t have to.” This is in addition to Slate Plus, which offers ad-free Slate content (including podcasts) to readers and listeners for a fee.

In 2020, Slate began asking engaged readers to join Slate Plus to “keep reading articles on the site.” The move came as Slate looked to continue to diversify its revenue.

More recently, Slate’s Charlie Krammerer said he was prioritizing frequency to boost podcast revenue.

Krammerer said, “One of the things that is driving our strategy [in 2022] is frequency. Our shows are bifurcated between narrative and then everything else. When we look at our narrative stuff, our biggest [show] “Slowburn,” we just launched [our seventh season on Roe v. Wade] when SCOTUS came out with their decisions. This was a little bit of a mini-season — it was only four episodes — but might there be another shorter season later in the year? Maybe. Might there be two seasons next year that are a little shorter? Probably.

He continued, “We’re doing the same thing with our other two narrative shows: “Decoder Ring” and “One Year.” We’re coming in with basically three seasons of six or seven episodes.”

Why? It allows the company to create a deeper connection with listeners and offer more advertising opportunities to brands. Krammerer said, “So a frequency thing also allows us to have a lot more downloads and impressions available for when the money’s available.”

Luminary is a podcast app that offers access to the “thousands of shows you already love” and “access to 40+ new podcasts” billed as premium content. The new content features big names like Conan O’Brien and Trevor Noah and was sure to make a splash. 

“We want to become synonymous with podcasting in the same way Netflix has become synonymous with streaming,” Matt Sacks, Luminary’s co-founder, told The New York Times. “I know how ambitious that sounds. We think it can be done.”

Lofty ambitions aside, the question for both podcasters and advertisers alike is less about whether it can be done and more about whether the subscription model will prove viable for the industry. 

So, has it worked?

Luminary’s CEO Rishi Malhotra thinks so: “The model is working from a revenue basis.” The service’s subscriber numbers continue growing; Luminary was Apple’s #2 podcast channel in 2021.

That said, the company isn’t resting on its laurels. Last year, Luminary announced it would be the exclusive home to No Fear of Time, the first album from Yasiin Bey and Talib Kweli’s Black Star in 24 years.

Is There Still Promise with Premium Podcasting?

What’s New in Publishing wrote that in 2019 we would see more publishers “pivot to paid” by “prioritizing direct reader revenues over advertising or other revenue streams.” 

Around the time Supporting Cast went live, and months before Luminary launched, Mary-Katharine Phillips at WNIP expanded on this potential: “The pivot to paid is more than just direct reader revenues, it also includes listener revenues. We know how important habit formation is in any retention strategy, and this holds true for audio as well. Until recently, it has been very difficult for publishers to offer premium audio while still allowing listeners to keep the habits they had already formed around audio.” 

But then Slate introduced Supporting Cast, which made the shift to premium audio more realistic for publishers hoping to retain habit-forming listeners. Instead of switching apps or limiting their listening hours, the platform allows consumers to simply pay for what they see as valuable. 

But what about pure-play premium podcasts? Are they still in play?

Amazon sure seems to think so.

In 2020, Amazon acquired Wondery, which was, at the time, one of the last major independent podcast networks.

YouTube does, too.

In 2023, the company announced it’d be testing “the capacity to upload and manage podcasts in the YouTube Studio app.”

According to YouTube, the test aims to “make it easier for creators to distribute their podcasts on YouTube, we’re running an experiment that allows you to create a podcast or set an existing playlist as a podcast within Studio.”

So, what’s the verdict?

The subscription model is unlikely to completely replace ad-supported podcasts, just as broadcast television remains highly relevant as the streaming wars rage on. But the model could be poised for massive growth. 

For more insights, sign up for MediaRadar’s blog here.

Some of this has to do with the loss of business activity among certain sectors (i.e. restaurants, tourism and other hurting industries). But aside from this is a big change in the media industry: the blacklisting of the term ‘coronavirus.’ 

When we look at native ads, we are seeing a similar trend. Advertisers are proceeding delicately with native advertising — but it’s not completely off the table. 

Let’s jump in. 

We encourage you to subscribe to our blog for the latest data surrounding the advertising industry. We will provide daily updates as COVID-19 continues to make its mark on the US economy.

Native Advertising in this Pandemic

While news readership and media consumption is up, advertising is down. 

Out of fear of brand safety, many brands have stopped buying ad placements adjacent to coronavirus content. ‘Coronavirus’ recently became the number one blocked term within Integral Ad Science (IAS), an ad verification company. 

“It is possible that this is a temporary measure as [brands] evaluate their stance on appearing adjacent to this type of content,” said an IAS spokesperson. The company does not recommend blocking the term coronavirus, but many brands still feel uncomfortable sponsoring hard news.

From the publisher’s perspective, native advertising is tricky at this time. Publishers have to be careful not to allow content that is spreading false information or fake endorsements. Many products appear in times of crisis — like vitamins that are a cure or false statements by celebrities. 

Despite the delicate nature of native advertising, it can still be done well. There are opportunities within certain verticals to promote impactful, accurate and brand-safe native advertisements.

Justyna Liana at Voluum DSP says that the verticals that have the most potential include:

• Health and safety 
• eCommerce
• Making money online (freelancing tools, online courses, etc.)
• Gaming and streaming
• Online dating and communication

MediaRadar was curious about what the data had to say. Here are our findings. 

MediaRadar Insights

Our data shows that native advertising has been hit hard by the coronavirus crisis. 

We see a significant drop in spend starting the week of March 8th. Spending remained low through the end of March. 

The week of March 22nd, the month-over-month spend was down 43% and the number of brands running native ads was down 10%. Brands didn’t completely stop natvie advertising but they did reduce the amount they poured into the format. 

When we look at year-over-year data, the picture becomes even more clear. 

Before the coronavirus crisis had a huge impact on the U.S., native ad spend was comparable to 2019. Figures were similar until ‘Week 11’ (March 8). This is when we see a noticeable dip that did not occur last year. Spending in the last two weeks of March (weeks 12 and 13) was down 31% year-over-year.

Some of the largest buyers of native content year-to-date include: 

• Geico
• Progressive
• T-Mobile
• Optimum
• Domino’s

This backs up Liana’s theory above that some verticals will do better with native ads in this time. For instance, insurance companies and communication services are finding ways to promote their brand in more organic ways. 

For more updates like this, stay tuned. Subscribe to our blog for more updates on coronavirus and its mark on the economy.

Streaming platforms, podcasts and social videos may be making the headlines, but more traditional TV advertising is far from dead. There’s a reason, after all, that a Super Bowl spot costs at least $175,000 per second. 

In this 2019 TV advertising recap, we look at which categories are spending the most on TV ads, who the top advertisers are and the new players (including DTC brands) entering the field. 

Digital advertising revenue may have surpassed TV revenue, but TV advertising is still a $70+ Billion industry.  

So what did TV advertising actually look like for 2019, especially compared to 2018? 

The biggest categories in TV advertising

First up: which categories advertise the most with traditional TV? Retail and finance took the top spots in both 2018 and 2019, with tech and pharma not far behind.

Year-over-year, we see retailers accounting for a larger share of dollars spent on TV ads, becoming the industry spending the most on TV in 2019. The retail industry jumped from a 12.8% share of TV ad spend in 2018 to a 14.5% share in 2019.

Diving deeper into the category, it was eCommerce retailers like Amazon, Wayfair and even Etsy that helped push the category higher (DTC players, as we’ll see below, also played a part).

Read More:
These Are the 5 New DTC Brands to Keep on Your Radar 

At the tail end of the categories was the home furnishings category, which accounted for less than 3 percent of TV advertising spend (to be fair, retailers like Wayfair walk the line). 

The biggest players in TV advertising 

This year, the top 10 TV advertisers spent nearly $10 billion on television ads. That’s almost 15 percent of the entire market. 

But we’ll be honest: there aren’t any surprises when it comes to the biggest spenders in TV advertising for 2019 when compared to 2018. Most of the big players remain the same year to year. Take a look. 

Looking at the top 10 advertisers of the year, we see that 6 of them were also in the top 10 last year. The 4 who fell out of the top 10 this year (Verizon, Disney, Pfizer, Comcast) all still still make the top 15 spenders list in 2019. 

It gets better: those new to the top 10 this year (Amazon, T-Mobile, Hyundai, and PepsiCo) were all in the top 20 last year. 

The new players in TV advertising 

Again, TV advertising is far from dead. Over 2,000 companies advertised on national TV for the first time this year — including DTC brands and those with a digital-first marketing focus. 

These companies collectively spent over $1B — a far cry from the $10 billion spent by just the top 10 spenders this year. 

Some notable examples of these new players include: 

• PostMates
• Robinhood 
• Essentia Water
• Mirror 

It’s a big month for streaming. Apple TV+ just launched and Disney+ is coming soon (but not to own on video & DVD). It’s time for an update on the state of the streaming wars. 

In this strange new world, tech companies like Apple are investing in content and media companies like Disney are investing in technology. So how does all this effort stack up? 

In August, the MediaRadar research team reported on the converging forces:

“After Disney announced earlier this year that it will launch its Disney+ streaming service in November, Apple announced that it is launching its own subscription-based video streaming service, Apple TV+. It’s rumored that Apple is currently spending $6 billion on content; $5 billion more than its original plan. In comparison, Disney is projected to spend $23.8 billion on content, Netflix is expected to spend up to $15 billion, and Amazon is on pace to spend $7 billion on video and music content in 2019.” 

Clearly, these numbers indicate that Netflix, Amazon, Disney and Apple are the royalty of over-the-top television (OTT). With the launch of HBO Max in 2020, AT&T’s WarnerMedia may join the exclusive club soon.

But consumers may need some convincing. The top seven streaming platforms will collectively cost $61. Consumers will more realistically pick and choose the platforms they actually want to pay for, leaving companies pitching both price point and content.  

Apple is going for a ‘quality over quantity’ approach, with just a handful of shows available on the platform. Disney+ is touting its massive library with everything from Marvel to The Simpsons (thanks to its recent 20th Century Fox acquisition). 

But all of this has to do with content spend, not ad spend. What does advertising an OTT option in an already crowded space look like? 

Apple and Disney Spend Big Ahead of Streaming Launch

For now, let’s look at the two headline makers: Apple and Disney. 

MediaRadar found that both platforms only started running ads in late August. Apple quickly overtook not only Disney’s ad spend, but the entire streaming space. It topped out ad spend in September, becoming the top spender among all streaming platforms.

To date, Apple TV+ has outspent Disney+ five times over. The platform did launch nearly two weeks ahead of the Disney counterpart, so the difference may be made up this month. 

The two companies differ in strategy, as well. Apple has been promoting its original content rather than the platform. So far, it has focused ad spend around eight shows in particular.

In contrast, Disney is promoting the new streaming platform as a whole, using clips from owned content to pitch the breadth of the platform. While not paid media, Disney posted a 3-hour-plus video on YouTube titled “Basically Everything Coming to Disney+”. 

On top of more traditional advertising, Disney has rolled out packaged deal after packaged deal thanks to its extensive holdings and powerful partnerships. For example: Verizon announced a year of free Disney+ for both new and existing customers, and more impressively Disney announced a $12.99 bundle with Disney+, ESPN and Hulu (both of which are majority-owned and controlled by house mouse). Apple, for its part, is including a year subscription to Apple TV+ with the purchase of any Apple product. 

Apple is almost on the defensive in this new world, playing against as a tech company against media giants like Disney. ““No one says the best movies come from Apple today,” MediaRadar CEO Todd Krizelman told The Los Angeles Times this week. “They have a real deficiency in terms of changing perception that they are a place where you should go to watch your content.”

In a bid to make that case, Apple has spent $20 million advertising its two biggest shows ahead of the launch. 

In contrast, Disney’s robust offerings, combined with constant messaging across Disney properties, may immediately drive Disney+ to the top. “Think of Disney like a giant pinball machine, with content and initiatives pinging between divisions in an effort to drive up the ultimate score,” Gene Del Vecchio, a marketing professor at USC, told The New York Times. 

But all of this is around the launch of new platforms. We’ll see what advertising spend does for the incumbents through 2020. 

Vice has acquired Refinery29 for an estimated $400 million, leaving those in and out of the industry with plenty to talk about. 

Given that it creates a $4 billion company, the deal has received no small amount of attention this past week, with discussions surrounding Refinery29’s revenue streams, the distinct audiences of the two digital publications and how the deal fits within the industry on the whole. 

For MediaRadar, two of the most interesting questions are: what can the acquisition mean for advertisers, and what does it mean for the metaphorical, rapidly consolidating digital advertising pie? 

MediaRadar Insight: Advertisers with Vice and Refinery29 

More than anything, Vice will be greatly growing their advertiser roster with the move. 

Of the more than 600 companies to advertise with Refinery29 in the past year, only 19 percent were also on Vice platforms. The lack of overlap is completely unsurprising, given Refinery29’s mostly female audience and Vice’s reputation for gonzo journalism and ‘boys club’ internal culture. Distancing itself from this image may not be Vice’s primary motivation in the acquisition, but it doesn’t hurt either. 

As far as industries go, Vice is gaining many new clients from the retail/apparel and accessory industries through the deal — again unsurprising given Refinery29’s audience. These two industries accounted for 40 percent of spend on Refinery29 over the past year, compared to 21 percent of the spend on Vice platforms.

Refinery29’s share of advertisers are not limited to those with a female audience, either. Besides Estee Lauder, a few of the companies that were advertising on Refinery29 but not with Vice are Target, Puma and eBay.

The Financial Times reports that the deal will boost Vice’s online reach by 17 percent, up to 350 million unique visitors each month. 

What the Acquisition Means for Each Digital Brand 

While it’s tempting to think of the deal in idealistic terms, the consolidation was almost certainly out of necessity. According to The New York Times, Refinery29 has been searching for buyers for at least a couple of years in the face of an increasingly tough industry. “The digital media industry is dominated by Google and Facebook, which together take more than 60 percent of online advertising revenue,” write Edmund Lee and Marc Tracy. “Last year, several media executives discussed the likelihood that they would have to join forces” at least in part to counter this heavy influence. Vice is backed by Disney and Refinery29 is backed by WarnerMedia — and the pressure to consolidate is clear. 

Vice CEO Nancy Dubuc (who replaced Vice founder Shane Smith last year after the company faced backlash for its internal culture) commented directly on how the deal will strengthen the position of both publications. “As other parts of the sector consolidate, I think we have to march in long step,” Dubuc said. “We will not allow a rapidly consolidating media ecosystem to constrict young people’s choices.” She hopes that the consolidation of both publications will signal a “new era” in digital media.

The deal also gives both publications the chance to leverage the strength of the other and explore new revenue streams. Refinery29, for example, gives advertisers virtually unprecedented access to its editorial staff for branded content and is rapidly building out its events business. For its part, Vice has industry-leading content agency Virtue and has invested quite a bit into international influencers as it grows.

What remains to be seen is just how big the freshly minted media presence will become — one estimate still places the combined audience reach well behind BuzzFeed. 

Between Andrew Luck’s retirement and the NFL tapping Jay-Z as its “live music entertainment strategist”, football hit the headlines early this year. 

Now with the opening weekend behind us and the rest of the season ahead, we can look at how advertising with one of the largest brands in the United States is shaping up so far. 

Despite the rumors and eye catching headlines from past seasons, the NFL does not seem to have any problem with its TV ratings. IN fact, NBC’s Sunday Night Football was the most-watched program for the 2018-19 season. It’s the eighth year in a row Sunday Night Football has claimed the spot, drawing 19.3 million viewers weekly. Viewership for Monday and Thursday night football were up as well across for Fox, ESPN and the NFL Network. Overall, the NFL accounted for three of the five top spots in network TV. 

Viewership didn’t go anywhere for the first kickoff of the new season, either. The NFL Kickoff game — when the Packers defeated long time rivals the Bears — posted 22 million Nielsen viewers for a 16 percent increase over last year’s opener. Clearly, all this is a boon for advertising. 

NFL Opening Weekend’s Biggest Spenders

MediaRadar took a close look at the shape of advertising for NFL’s big weekend in 2019. 

One of the most striking takeaways was how the lineup of biggest spenders changed from 2018 to 2019. Last year, the top ad buyers for the NFL opening weekend were:

• Toyota
• Verizon
• Geico
• GM
• AT&T

This year, just two of the top spenders remained the same. They were:

• Google
• Amazon
• AT&T
• Geico
• Anheuser-Busch InBev

The two tech giants replaced two of the biggest automotive brands in the US — a sign of just how important the tech sector is these days. Many other advertisers that just started spending on the NFL opening weekend are centered around tech, as well. Apple, Facebook and DoorDash are all notable examples. 

In fact, retail and tech were the only two industries that saw a significant increase in ad spend for the opening weekend (see the chart below). Outside of the FAANG companies already listed, the tech industry ad spend was boosted by IBM and Samsung, among others. With a clear overlap with eCommerce, retail ad spend was boosted by Amazon, Walmart and Lowe’s. 

Taking a deeper at the top 50 advertising spenders from the opening weekend in 2018, 88 percent made the list for this year as well. Three brands that didn’t make the cut: Levi’s, Kohls and Mars. 

Last year, MediaRadar’s report reinforced “the value marketers continue to place behind destination live TV sports viewing.” With advertising bolstered by tech and retail, it seems that notion has been confirmed again in 2019. 

CBS Networks have gone dark on networks from New York to Los Angeles. The AT&T owned DirectTV and U-Verse were unable to reach a contract agreement with CBS late last month, which has translated into viewers across the country losing access to CBS channels. 

In response, the network (home to popular shows like NCIS and The Late Show) is directing viewers to KeepCBS.com, which includes instructions to post to DirectTV’s social media, email the AT&T company directly or to switch providers altogether. 

The blackout includes over 100 CBS stations and affiliates, and affects over 6 million customers.

Where the Dispute Stands 

“While CBS has made every effort to avoid this blackout, we won’t agree to terms that undervalue our hit programming enjoyed by nearly 240 million viewers across all dayparts last season on ‘America’s Most-Watched Network,’”, CBS wrote in a statement. “Those loyal viewers are now bearing the burden for AT&T’s unwillingness to negotiate a deal that reflects the current marketplace.”

For its part, AT&T says it offered the highest fee it offers to any national broadcaster. “The bid asked candidly is not that wide, but it’s kind of an interesting dynamic,” said AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson in a call with investors. “We sent, that was a reasonable, fair offer over five days ago, and that’s been crickets. We haven’t heard anything.” In another statement, AT&T said they “were willing to continue to negotiate and also offered to pay CBS an unprecedented rate increase.”

Both parties seem to be waiting each other out.

How the Dispute Affects Advertisers

Trading blame aside, it’s clear that the blackouts will affect advertisers if the dispute isn’t resolved soon. 

CBS has contracts with nearly 900 companies in total. The network’s top advertisers include Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Ford, General Motors and Nestle. The top industries advertising on CBS are pharma, financial and auto. 

But the biggest spenders may not be as impacted as brands advertising around CBS’ pro football coverage. Over 175 companies bought on CBS and CBS Sports during pro football coverage for last portion of Q3 this year. The top advertisers in this segment include Verizon, Geico, Ford, Anheuser Busch and (ironically) AT&T. 

The upcoming pro football coverage will be felt the most by CBS advertisers, but it also gives CBS unique leverage in the ongoing dispute. 

CBS may be placed in a tight spot with its advertisers, they also seem to hold most of the cards in the contract dispute. “CBS believes that as a purveyor of some of the nation’s most sought-after televised entertainment options, it enjoys far more bargaining power than AT&T,” writes Anthony Crupi at AdAge. 

The impending football season helped CBS resolve a similar spat with Time Warner Cable in 2013. Football fans and ad execs alike are hoping a similar middle ground can be reached this month.

Dish and Fox are facing a similar contract dispute — and will have to bring it to a rapid conclusion as fans expect baseball’s stretch run and football’s preseason ramp up. 

Last year, Instagram announced IGTV — a new featured designed to deliver longform content from Instagram creators, influencers and brands.

Designed to be set apart from certain other online video platforms (including Facebook’s own video feature), IGTV initially made integrated video: it retained the format of Instagram Stories and vertical video a key part of its announcement.

“You could create hour-long episodes of a long-term series, or use Instagram TV as an extension of your standard Instagram profile,” wrote Rebekah Carter at SproutSocial after the announcement.

All of that remains true, but now brands can use IGTV to publish horizontal video. The change was in response to requests from content creators, according to Instagram:

“We’ve learned and grown a lot in this first year. In meeting with creators and viewers, we’ve heard about what they like – and what needs to be improved. Today marks yet another change for IGTV – and it once again comes from listening to our creators and viewers. We’ve heard from creators who want to upload landscape videos for IGTV. Similarly, we’ve heard from viewers who come across landscape videos in IGTV but want to watch them in a more natural way. That’s why we’re announcing support for landscape videos in addition to vertical. Ultimately, our vision is to make IGTV a destination for great content no matter how it’s shot so creators can express themselves how they want.”

In and of itself, the move isn’t a huge one. But some advertisers think that it could be the first step toward monetizing that particular channel of Instagram. And AdAge reports that several advertising executives told them that they have been approached by Instagram about advertising on IGTV.

“The theory is that IGTV’s support for landscape mode will yield a bumper crop of diverse new content, and, by extension, a lift in viewing,” writes Todd Spangler at Variety.

Including horizontal video on the platform certainly makes it more ad-friendly and budget friendly. Up until now, many media companies had to create content specific to Instagram’s platform. With the new change, IGTV can simply become another channel by which to share video — and soon, ad creatives.

Say what you want about TV Upfronts — a tradition-mixed-with-business-event going back over half a century — but the week offers a glimpse into what networks have on offer and what media buyers can expect in the year to come.

Short on time? Download our free TV Advertising Trend Report!

More recently, the lines between traditional broadcast TV and streaming services have become blurred, a fact showcased in everything from rejiggered ad loads to innovative ad formats. At the same time, some of the upfronts reminded everyone that traditional broadcasting is here to stay — at least for awhile.

These are our top three takeaways from the busy week focused on the 2019-2020 slate.

Digital is now the norm: Broadcasters are reducing ad load, streamers are pitching primetime

“Stuffing seemingly interminable commercial blocks into programming is a losing battle when consumers can avail themselves of ad-skipping technology and ad-free platforms,” writes Marisa Guthrie at The Hollywood Reporter.

This is precisely why many of the broadcasters made a promise for a lower ad load per hour in their upfront presentations.

Turner and Viacom have made similar promises in the past few years; this year, NBCUniversal promised to reduce ad load by 20 percent during prime time in the last quarter of 2019 and Fox made the ambitious promise to reduce ad totals to two minutes per hour.

At the same time, ad formats are getting increasingly innovative with the overlap between traditional TV and streaming TV. NBCUniversal, for example, introduces prime pod ads for reduced ad load in conjunction with a new shoppable ad unit.  

With these innovative ad formats, the lines between digital and broadcast media are becoming increasingly blurred. After both NewFronts (the digital equivalent of Upfronts) and the TV Upfronts week, Amanda Martin at AdWeek wrote on the overlap: “The content of both events is converging today, with Facebook looking for upfront commitments and WarnerMedia addressing targeting and measurability via Xandr this year.”

Maintaining a competitive edge amidst this growing overlap is key for both the digital and traditional TV. In the TV landscape, it means a wealth of new information, concepts, and strategies. Becoming programmatic-literate and staying up to date on the evolution of programmatic TV, for example, is a new opportunity ushered in for networks to explore.

Broadcast TV is increasing its digital streaming presence

For its part, NBCUniversal took a couple of shots at Netflix in its presentation. The first was the (largely accepted but largely unsubstantiated) claim that The Office (an NBC show) remains the most popular show on the streaming platform. The claim planted a “subtle dig in advertising buyers’ minds that the streaming giant’s own original programming isn’t of the same quality as programs that come from old-school suppliers,” writes Whitney Friedlander at Fortune.

The other, more serious commentary was from Linda Yaccarino, chairman of advertising and client partnerships. Yaccarino announced that NBCUniversal’s upcoming streaming platform will be free to consumers (due to advertising) and have fully transparent data.

The announcement is not a surprise, with news surrounding the expansion of CBS, AT&T and Comcast into streaming services making headlines for at least the past year. But the NBC upfront confirmed: it will be direct competition for the top.

While streaming is in the docket, the collective pitch to brands was that the traditional broadcasters represent a better opportunity for advertising.

“The networks represent a “safe” environment for their messages, and the partnership with sponsors is still prized, despite the collective pivot toward subscription-based streaming services,” writes Brian Lowry at CNN.

Long story short: where advertisers spend their budget into 2020 will be telling in the ongoing conversation surrounding traditional and streaming TV.

Take a look at the top spending TV advertisers!

Of course: Disney showcases its staying power

While much of the week focused on the new, in many ways Disney showcased its staying power in the media giant’s first upfront after its acquisition of 21st Century Fox’ assets.

“Considering how many networks now fall under the Mouse House’s roof, it’s a miracle the Tuesday presentation isn’t still going on,” write Tim Baysinger and Tony Maglio at The Wrap.

Jokes aside, Disney’s upfront was just as much about the long lasting nature of some of its shows as it was about its new content. As Jason Lynch at AdWeek reports, one highlight was Disney spotlighting the full cast of Modern Family. The show first aired 10 years ago and is now heading into its last season. “It was a good reminder of how seismic an upfront presentation can potentially be,” writes Lynch.

Seismic or otherwise, each of the upfronts from earlier this month paved the way for new partnerships, advertising opportunity and platforms in 2019 and 2020.

Between some of the major entertainment mergers and media distributors launching their own streaming platforms, the shape of streaming TV is set up for some big changes in the near future. Who owns what will affect where people can watch what they want — and how advertisers can best reach them.

Disney+ Undercuts Netflix With an Impressive Catalog of Content

Disney+ was announced more than six months ago, but the buzz surrounding the new streaming platform hasn’t really died down. Adding to the anticipation is the announcement that Disney+ will be just $6.99 per month, undercutting Netflix (which is now $12.99 for the standard plan). The platform will launch in November; consumers and advertisers are both counting down the days.

Disney’s acquisition of most of Fox laid the foundation for this streaming service. “We can see what Disney’s ambition is with this $71 billion move: they want more of a buffet-style lineup that appeals to multiple demographics and holds name brand power,” writes Brandon Katz at The Observer. It’s a buffet-style lineup that will work perfectly with a streaming platform.

Business Insider outlines all of the major franchises and content that Disney owns after the Fox deal. From Pixar movies and Disney’s live-action remakes, to less family friendly favorites like Die Hard and Deadpool – it’s an impressive array.

To maintain its image while continuing to produce more mature feature films, Disney will most likely feature its branded content on Disney+ while pushing Fox content to Hulu. The diverse content will also mean Disney can rake in the advertising dollars on multiple platforms.

Netflix is Facing More Competition Than Ever Before

Netflix isn’t going anywhere. But with the streaming wars well underway, some of the most popular content on Netflix is under threat of being removed from the platform as the content owners become Netflix competitors.

Netflix faced fan backlash after announcing that the hit show Friends would be removed from the platform — AT&T was the new owner after purchasing Time Warner, and had its own streaming plans. After the social media response, Netflix negotiated a $100 million deal with AT&T to keep the show up through 2019.

What happens at the end of this year remains to be seen. Even if they do successfully keep Friends through 2020, Netflix will have another problem in 2021 when its licensing of The Office expires. The Office is Netflix’s #1 show by the number of hours streamed. But since it’s an NBC show, Comcast owns The Office and will be launching its own streaming platform shortly, setting up another headache for Netflix.

And for a future conversation: Netflix will have to face the challenge of competing with major platforms that have the distinct advantage of bringing in ad revenue.

Media Landscape in 2019: Larger Players With More to Offer

In their article for Vox, Rani Molla and Peter Kafka write on the increasingly blurred lines between distribution, content and streaming services. “The media landscape used to be straightforward: Content companies made stuff — TV shows and movies — and sold it to pay TV distributors, who sold it to consumers.” Now, everything’s up for grabs.

Netflix buys content and produces its own. Comcast, a distributor, will soon offer streaming, as will Disney, a content creator. The Vox article lays out the current state of the media landscape. “We’ve created a diagram that organizes distributors, content companies and internet video companies by market cap — the value investors assign to the companies — and their main lines of business,” the authors write.  

But more telling than the shape of the media landscape in this graphic is what Molla and Kafka write at the very beginning of their article: “It probably won’t look like this for long.”

For starters, when Disney bought most of Fox they also took over a majority control of Hulu. With rumors that Comcast may sell their 30 percent share to Disney and Hulu hanging onto its 10 percent stake it bought from AT&T, ownership of one of the biggest streaming platforms looks much different today than it did even a year ago.

With Hulu stakes changing hands left and right, Verizon building its own offerings and CBS making a foray into streaming video, many of these circles will grow or shrink. At the same time, Comca st and Disney will soon add a shade to their own pies as they add their streaming offerings.