Two weeks ago, I highlighted two themes around transparency:
Netflix continues to set and then redefine the market standard for transparency, and YouTube's more granular metrics continue to offer a stark contrast to the minimal disclosure from legacy media SVOD and AVOD streaming services.
Why do these matter?
In many ways they are not significant: investors want a growth story, and subscriber counts can either tell a growth story or they do not. Anything more may not matter, yet: the objective is free cash flow when the business matures.
Transparency can hurt a story for investors more than it can help it, as I told Observer’s Brandon Katz back in July in an excellent article on transparency in streaming:
“For every streaming service not named Netflix, streaming is neither the only line item nor a significant line item contributing to Operating Income or EBITDA,” Rosen told Observer. “The risk of disclosing metrics is that it may create additional storylines which confuse investors about the business. Better to have them clear on where the business is headed than to raise more questions.”
But, transparency from Netflix and YouTube sets the market standards against which everyone else measured and evaluated, consistently. That was true in 2021, and seems positioned to remain true in 2022 and beyond.
The question is how their standards are shaping the marketplace in ways that we saw were significant, and in other ways we may not have noticed.
That certainly played out in Disney's surprise dispute with Scarlett Johansson earlier in the summer, which I wrote about inA Short Essay on Scarlett Johansson v. Disney, Transparency & Incentives. Disney's lack of transparency aroundBlack Widowand its decision ...