Game of Screens

  • Tom Evens
  • Karen Donders
Part of the Palgrave Global Media Policy and Business book series (GMPB)


The chapter describes the evolution of connected viewing, which represents a fundamental shift in the media ecosystem, putting pressuring on the power relationships within the contemporary television industry. It involves a massive shift in screen consumption and impacts the time and money viewers spend on television. The chapter discusses the functional equivalence of traditional and over-the-top platforms, questioning to what extent legacy and new television services are substitutes or complements. The chapter sheds light on the trends of cord cutting and cord shaving, and provides a number of factors that make local media markets more or less vulnerable to these threats. The final section focuses on the competitive responses of television incumbents to preserve their gatekeeping position and discusses some sources of structural power in the era of Internet-distributed television. A case note shows how Netflix pressures traditional media organisations to explore new capabilities that deal with algorithmic and data-driven models.


  1. Afuah, A. (2014). Business model innovation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Arkena. (2015). Nordic video index. Available at:
  3. Arsenault, A. H. (2017). The datafication of media: Big data and the media industries. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 13(1 & 2), 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baccarne, B., Evens, T., & Schuurman, D. (2013). The television struggle: An assessment of over-the-top television evolutions in a cable dominant market. Communication & Strategies, 92(4), 43–61.Google Scholar
  5. Balakrishnan, A. (2017, April 17). Netflix has committed to spend a whopping $15.3 billion on streaming content. Available at: (October 24, 2017).
  6. Ballon, P. (2007). Business modelling revisited: The configuration of control and value. Info: The Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications, Information and Media, 9(5), 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banerjee, A., Alleman, J., & Rappoport, P. (2013). Video-viewing behaviour in the era of connected devices. Communication & Strategies, 92(4), 19–42.Google Scholar
  8. Banerjee, A., Rappoport, P., & Alleman, J. (2014). Forecasting video cord-cutting: The bypass of traditional pay television. In J. Alleman, Á. M. P. NíShúilleabháin, & P. N. Rappoport (Eds.), Demand for communications services—Insights and perspectives (pp. 59–82). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. BARB. (2015). The viewing report. London, UK.Google Scholar
  10. BARB. (2016, March 21). Is Netflix taking over? Available at:
  11. Bourdon, J., & Méadel, C. (2011). Inside television audience measurement: Deconstructing the ratings machine. Media Culture & Society, 33(5), 791–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brodkin, J. (2016, February 11). Netflix finishes its massive migration to the Amazon cloud. Available at: (October 24, 2017).
  13. Bulygo, Z. (2013). How Netflix uses analytics to select movies, create content, and make multimillion dollar decisions. Available at: (October 20, 2017).
  14. Bury, R., & Li, J. (2015). Is it live or is it timeshifted, streamed or downloaded? Watching television in the era of multiple screens. New Media & Society, 17(4), 592–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlton, D. W., & Waldman, M. (2002). The strategic use of tying to preserve and create market power in evolving industries. RAND Journal of Economics, 33(2), 194–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cha, J. (2013a). Do online video platforms cannibalize television? How viewers are moving from old screens to new ones. Journal of Advertising Research, 51(3), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cha, J. (2013b). Predictors of television and online video platform use: A coexistence model of old and new video platforms. Telematics and Informatics, 30(4), 296–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cha, J., & Chan-Olmsted, S. M. (2012). Substitutability between online video platforms an television. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(2), 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crawford, G. S., & Cullen, J. (2007). Bundling, product choice, and efficiency: Should cable television networks be offered a’ la carte? Information Economics and Policy, 19(3), 379–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crawford, G. S., & Yurukoglu, A. (2012). The welfare effects of bundling in multichannel television markets. American Economic Review, 102(2), 643–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Curtin, M. (2009). Matrix media. In G. Turner & J. Tay (Eds.), Television studies after “TV”: Understanding television in the post-broadcast era (pp. 9–19). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Digital TV Research. (2014). Netflix heading for 17 million international subs. Available at: (June 2015).
  23. Digital TV Research. (2015, April 5). Cord-cutting very limited in Western Europe. Available at:
  24. Dimmick, J. (1997). The theory of the niche and spending on mass media: The case of the ‘video revolution’. Journal of Media Economics, 10(3), 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dimmick, J. (2003). Media competition and coexistence: The theory of the niche. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Dimmick, J., Feaster, J. C., & Ramirez, A. J. (2011). The niches of interpersonal media: Relationships in time and space. New Media & Society, 13(8), 1265–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dupagne, M., & Green, J. R. (1996). Revisiting the principle of relative constancy: Consumer mass media expenditures in Belgium. Communication Research, 23(5), 612–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. eMarketer. (2015, December 10). Americans cutting the cable TV cord at increasing pace. Available at:
  29. Evens, T., Iosifidis, P., & Smith, P. (2013). The political economy of television sports rights. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Evens, T., Lefever, K., Valcke, P., Schuurman, D., & De Marez, L. (2011). Access to premium content on mobile television platforms: The case of mobile sports. Telematics and Informatics, 28(1), 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fidler, R. (1997). Mediamorphosis: Understanding new media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Frankel, D. (2017a, April 17). Cable operators to double broadband prices over next several years, analyst predicts. Available at:
  33. Frankel, D. (2017b, March 2). Linear pay TV lost 319K subs in Q4 as cord cutting accelerated, analyst says. Available at:
  34. Frieden, R. (2014). Next generation television and the migration from channels to platforms. In Y.-L. Liu & R. G. Picard (Eds.), Policy and marketing strategies for digital media (pp. 60–72). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Fullerton, H. S. (1988). Technology collides with relative constancy: The pattern of adoption for a new medium. Journal of Media Economics, 1(2), 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Greenfield, R. (2013, April 22). Netflix has almost already paid for ‘House of Cards’ in new subscribers. Available at: (October 23, 2017).
  37. Greer, C. F., & Ferguson, D. A. (2015). Tablet computers and traditional television (TV) viewing: Is the iPad replacing TV? Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 21(2), 244–256.Google Scholar
  38. Hagey, K., & Ramachandran, S. (2014, October 9). Pay TV’s new worry: ‘Shaving’ the cord. Available at:
  39. Hallinan, B., & Striphas, T. (2016). Recommended for you: The Netflix Prize and the production of algorithmic culture. New Media & Society, 18(1), 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Harris, S. (2016, April 8). Cable cord-cutting numbers soar in Canada thanks to Netflix, high prices, says report. Available at:
  42. Havens, T. (2014). Media programming in an era of big data. Media Industries Journal, 1(2), 4–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Holt, J., & Sanson, K. (2014). Introduction: Mapping connections. In J. Holt & K. Sanson (Eds.), Connected viewing, selling, streaming, & sharing media in the digital age (pp. 1–15). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. IHS (2014). Cross-platform television viewing time: Consumers embrace on-demand TV in the US and Europe. Available at:
  45. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Jenner, M. (2015). Is this TVIV? On Netflix, TVIII and binge-watching. New Media & Society, 18(2), 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jenner, M. (2017). Binge-watching: Video-on-demand, quality TV and mainstreaming fandom. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 20(3), 304–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Johnson, V. E. (2009). Historicizing TV networking: Broadcasting, cable and the case of ESPN. In J. Holt & A. Perren (Eds.), Media industries. History, theory, and method (pp. 57–68). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  50. Kim, J., Kim, S., & Nam, C. (2016). Competitive dynamics in the Korean video platform market: Traditional pay TV platforms vs OTT platforms. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 711–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Küng, L. (2017). Strategic management in the media: Theory to practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Layton, R. (2014). Netflix comes to the Nordics: Lessons in OTT video. Nordic and Baltic Journal of Information and Communications Technologies, 3(1), 109–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lee, H. L., & Andrejevic, M. (2014). Second-screen theory: From the democratic surround to the digital enclosure. In J. Holt & K. Sanson (Eds.), Connected viewing, selling, streaming, & sharing media in the digital age (pp. 40–61). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Lee, S.-Y., & Lee, S.-W. (2015). Online video services and other media: Substitutes or complement. Computers in Human Behaviour, 51, 293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lee, S.-Y., Lee, S. W., & Kim, C. (2016). Time displacement effect of online video services on other media in South Korea. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Leichtman Research Group. (2016). Press releases. Available at:
  57. Lindsey, C. (2016). Questioning Netflix’s revolutionary impact: Changes in the business and consumption of television. In K. McDonald & D. Smith-Rowsey (Eds.), The Netflix effect: Technology and entertainment in the 21st century (pp. 173–184). New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  58. Lotz, A. D. (2014). The television will be revolutionized. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Lotz, A. D. (2017). Portals: A treatise on internet-distributed television. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mansell, R. (2011). New visions, old practices: Policy and regulation in the internet era. Continuum, 25(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mansell, R. (2015). Platforms of power. Intermedia, 43(1), 20–24.Google Scholar
  62. McCombs, M. (1972). Mass media in the market place, Journalism Monographs 24. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. McCombs, M., & Eyal, C. H. (1980). Spending on mass media. Journal of Communication, 31(1), 153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McDonald, K., & Smith-Rowsey, D. (2016). Introduction. In K. McDonald & D. Smith-Rowsey (Eds.), The Netflix effect: Technology and entertainment in the 21st century (pp. 1–11). New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  65. Mediavision. (2016, September 14). IPTV compensating for subscriber loss on the Nordic pay TV market. Available at:
  66. Nalebuff, B. (2004). Bundling as an entry barrier. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1), 159–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Napoli, P. (2013). On automation in media industries: Integrating algorithmic media production into media industries scholarship. Media Industries Journal, 1(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
  68. Netflix. (2016). Netflix’s view: Internet TV is replacing linear TV. Available at:
  69. Neuman, R. W. (Ed.). (2010). Media, technology, and society: Theories of media evolution. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  70. Newell, J., Pilotta, J. J., & Thomas, J. C. (2008). Mass media displacement and saturation. The International Journal on Media Management, 10(4), 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Palmer, S. (2017, April 12). TV may actually die soon. Available at:
  72. Park, E.-A. (2017). Why the networks can’t beat Netflix: Speculations on the US OTT services market. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 19(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pew Research Center. (2015, 21 December). Home broadband 2015. Available at:
  74. Scarlata, A. (2015). Australian streaming services and the relationship between viewing data and local television drama production. Paper presented at the ASPERA Annual Conference 2015: What’s This Space? Screen Practice, Audiences and Education for the Future Decade, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  75. Shay, R. (2015). Windowed distribution strategies for substitutive television content: An audience-centric typology. International Journal on Media Management, 17(3), 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sherman, R., & Waterman, D. (2016). The economics of lonine video entertainment. In J. M. Bauer & M. Latzer (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of the internet (pp. 458–473). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  77. Smith, M. D., & Telang, R. (2016). Streaming, sharing, stealing. Big data and the future of entertainment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  78. Son, J., & McCombs, M. (1993). A look at the constancy principle under changing market conditions. Journal of Media Economics, 6(2), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Spangler, T. (2017, October 23). Netflix to raise $1.6 billion more debt financing to fuel content-buying binge. Available at: (October 24, 2017).
  80. Spitz, D. J. (2017). US, Eh? Contrasting the feasibility of À la carte television in Canada and the United States. Journal of International Media & Entertainment Law, 6(1), 43–71.Google Scholar
  81. Strangelove, M. (2015). Post-TV: Piracy, cord-cutting, and the future of television. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  82. Telecompaper. (2015, September 22). 8% Nederlanders wil binnen 2 jaar tv-abonnement opzeggen. Available at:–1103753.
  83. Tencer, D. (2014, November 28). Broadcast TV dead by 2030, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings says. Available at:
  84. Tryon, C. (2013). On-demand culture: Digital delivery and the future of movies. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Turner, G., & Tay, J. (2009). Television studies after TV. Understanding television in the post-broadcast era. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  86. van der Wurff, R. (2011). Are news media substitutes? Gratifications, contents, and uses. Journal of Media Economics, 24(3), 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wallenstein, A. (2017, August 8). With Millarworld, Netflix makes a risky bet for its first acquisition. Available at: (October 24, 2017).
  88. Waterman, D., Sherman, R., & Ji, S. W. (2013). The economics of online television: Revenue models, aggregation, and ‘TV everywhere’. Telecommunications Policy, 37(9), 725–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. White, D. (2016, April 18). TV audiences tumble as Netflix effect kicks in. Available at:
  90. Williams, R. (2003). Television: Technology and cultural form. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  91. Winston, B. (1998). Media technology and society. A history: From the telegraph to the Internet. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  92. Wolff, M. (2015). TV is the new TV. The unexpected triumph of old media in the digital age. New York: Portfolio.Google Scholar
  93. Wood, W. C. (1986). Consumer spending on the mass-media: The principle of relative constancy reconsidered. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wood, W. C., & O’Hare, S. L. (1991). Paying for the video revolution: Consumer spending on the mass media. Journal of Communication, 41(1), 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wu, T. (2003). Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 2, 141–176.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.imec-mict, Department of Communication SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.imec-SMIT, Department of Communication SciencesFree University of BrusselsBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations