Consumers are enjoying more communications choices than ever, as content distributors face competition on all sides. For example, television was once the sole province of cable companies, but now faces competition from satelite providers, as well as from multimedia content provided over high-speed internet carried over telephone lines (DSL). Newspapers, once the authoritative source of news, now are being strangled by fierce in-your-face competition from television news, radio news, and Internet-provided content.
Land-line telephone companies face competition from Voice Over IP (VOIP) technology companies, such as Vonage, which use the Internet to enable low-cost voice communication even over long-distances. They also face competition from cell phone providers, who may suggest that customers "dump their land lines".
For high-speed Internet, consumers can choose between DSL Internet, cable Internet, satelite Internet, cell-phone network Internet, rogue networks of wireless nodes, and still more esoteric options.
In short, consumers are presented with more options than ever, and content distributors are feeling pressured to differentiate themselves.
Yet not only are content distributors facing competition from consumers, but also from content creators, who can use the availability of multiple channels of distribution to negotiate for higher shares of the profit. After all, if the Super Bowl is only available through one distributor, then that distributor has effectively distinguished itself from the others for that market segment.
To avoid direct competition on the basis of price alone, distributors have sought to merge with or acquire various content creators. For example, a large US cable operator servicing over 21 million cable customers moved in this direction by offering to acquire Walt Disney for $66 billion.
Despite the attractiveness of creating a differentiated product by merging with content creators, the essential position of content distribution is vulnerable to attack by capital investment. Capital investment is particularly affordable in a low-interest, high-liquidity environment such as the current North American Market. For example, the takeover bid of Microcell communications by Rogers Communications was financed by debt. In addition, cell-phone network providers have been able to create redundant infrastructure rather than relying solely on the infrastructure of their competition.
While mergers and acquisitions (M&As) may create shareholder value by utilizing synergies between two companies, they are full of risks that may limit or eliminate this value, so it is often repeated that over 60% of mergers fail to create value for shareholders. One of the problems with M&A is that it lacks true differentiation. Instead of creating new and innovative options and competing on the merit of fresh creative ideas, the M&A promises "more of the same". An M&A which joins two companies with incompatible corporate cultures may be even less advisable, since cultural differences may make cooperation difficult or even impossible between the two teams.
To avoid some of the risks of M&A, content distributors may instead choose to incorporate joint ventures that hedge a steady cash flow that is easier for content distributors to provide, with the production of highly valuable creative content. Such a venture would succeed in its own right, or fail without affecting either the creators or the distributors as much as an outright merger or acquisition. In addition, content distributors could "stage" a merger or acquisition through such a joint venture by reserving the option for buy-out on favourable terms, should the venture prove to be a success.
The societal advantage of a joint venture is that it would increase, rather than decrease, consumer choice, and would be a creative force promising something new and different, rather than simply more of the same.
