Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say you have a fair point about the competition, but not about their being a lack of critical examination. A critical examination of the market would yield the fact that surveyed black viewers want more content targeted at them, don't feel fully represented even in the existing black content that's out there, and that despite an admittedly (and perhaps temporary) spike in black content, an estimated $10b in reven…
Maybe it's just because I have more exposure to the Hollywood side of this than you do, but you're very dismissive of BET and your other Hollywood competitors in a way that suggests you didn't do your research and that you're thinking that your tech backgrounds will magically let you jump into this market without actually knowing how it works. BET can never be all the way in on serving the black audience, as Viacom w…
Second, I 100% understand how BET is owned. I don't think anyone on Wall St. cares when a public company says we operate this subsidiary like an independent unit--it's pretty much never been true in the history of public companies, but it certainly isn't true in the case of BET. BET's biggest show of the year (the BET Awards) is aired on multiple Viacom channels. BET+'s subscriber numbers are folded into Viacom's overall numbers and separately disclosed. BET's cable carriage fees are negotiated in conjunction with Viacom's other cable channels. And at least (I haven't actually done a full count) 3 of BET's original shows are available separately on other Viacom SVOD services--something the "leader" of BET+ wouldn't do if they were 100% focused on growing their own subscriber base. Also, I'm pretty sure the head of BET (Scott Mills) reports to David Nevins and not the CEO of Viacom, which is the only way you could even begin to think it's an independent unit. So for you to say BET is run as an independent unit--well, I'd hate to see what it would look like if it wasn't run independently.
Third, when it comes to product, yes, BET spends more than us. We're a start-up. Our product is not what theirs is...yet. All I'm saying is that they aren't implementing the types of features we plan to add, and aren't investing in product development at a commiserate level with that of a tech company. And that's okay--I don't think they want to be a tech company--they want to be a media company (which I'll touch on later). In terms of our website being "inferior", you are right. We're not there yet. But to say it doesn't matter what's on our roadmap--well, I take it you don't really invest in seed companies. Because if all you can do is see what we're doing today and write us off, then you wouldn't invest in any company at the seed stage. You wouldn't even invest in Netflix before SVOD with that criteria. But I'll give it to you: we're not as good as the incumbents today.
Fourth, yes, I look at our competitors' decision to use Amazon Channels and Roku Channel as an opportunity for us. I think you don't quite understand the nuance there though. I'm not criticizing them for making their apps downloadable to Amazon or Roku--our apps are there as well. I'm saying that they disintermediate themselves by being apart of those platforms "Channels" offerings, which means Amazon and Roku actually own the customer relationship and can take a huge percentage of the revenue from each customer. By doing that, our competitors are simply replicating the old cable business model in digital form. But what Netflix should have taught us is that digital finally gives TV companies the chance to know and "own" their customers--and there's immense value in that. You bring up HBOMax, but they just went through a protracted negotiation with the platforms because they wanted to get HBO off of Amazon/Roku channels. In fact, just this week, HBOMax is no longer on Amazon Channels. This is good business. It's risky, but it's best for the long term. BET is not taking that route. They prefer to grow their audience at the sacrifice of ARPU and data, probably because they want to be a media/content company--or at least that's what's easiest for them to do given their strengths. And that's okay. That is one way to play it--and it's also probably the route you go if you don't want to invest a "ton" in tech and part of your parent company's mandate is to be a content "arms dealer".
Fifth, I think you've distilled our differentiated approach into something it very much isn't. I've written a few times about the few things we're trying to do. If you think our plan to get venture scale returns is to make "indie tv crap targeting black viewers", then you're not really here for the conversation but just to malign what we're doing. And I guess that's fine. I responded in hopes that others might be interested in an educated response to the misleading conclusions you reached.