If you were to be overly simplistic, you could argue that the media world revolves around four areas – audiences, content, technology and business – good old fashioned money.

I think it’s fair to say that typically, it’s the first three areas that grab the headlines – be it through the second/multi-screen viewing explosion, socially engaging audiences or the ever growing appetite for content creation – most notably from the NKOTB in OTT (yes, that was an early 90’s boy band reference).

But what struck me in the opening sessions at this year’s IBC is that while ‘business’ may not be the headline snatcher, it very much remains the power behind the throne.

In an insightful panel session that debated the role of national broadcasters vs. global platforms, there was one message that came across loud and clear – that while the technology and consumer demand may exist for a ‘global content platform’ (one ring to rule them all), that’s not what’s necessarily on the minds of the folks that make these things happen.

At this point, like many in the conference, there’s a collective rolling of the eyes; an audible tut towards those mean old ‘suits’ who miser what would otherwise be a bounty of globally available, free content. But before we go out on a march, I think the IBC panel raised some interesting perspectives to consider about the current state of global content rights management.

Firstly, the model that exists today – i.e. selling the same thing multiple times in multiple places – allows the content creator to maximise revenue. And yes, part of this is for profit (we’re not charities after all), but part of it also fuels the essential process of re-investing to keep production companies alive. No bad thing for the ever hungry content consumer that wants something more than UGC I would venture.

But beyond the obvious, I think that the current model actually creates a basis for choice as opposed to restricting it. Consider a possible alternative – where a smaller number of platforms own and globally publish the vast majority of content between them – rather than the diverse eco-system of broadcasters and aggregators that exists today. In this model, choice is arguably very much reduced. Moreover, given the cost of global ‘mega rights deals’, it’s more than likely that these platforms wouldn’t be able to buy and aggregate all the content you wanted to watch on one platform, so you’d still likely end up with a multi-subscription model. What’s more, as the focus moves to wide-appeal entertainment, it’s possible that the investment into localised content would suffer.

Now, all that said, I am certainly no naysayer on the importance of OTTs, online channels and globally connected platforms. I think the challenge these guys bring is a hugely important stimulus that’s key for the on-going health of the industry. But what I learned at IBC is that while things like the global rights situation could be better (and certainly needs to adapt), like many things in media, it’s evolved into something that’s curious in many ways, but also serves a purpose. It’s one of those things in our industry – and it’s in growing company – that while we could change it fundamentally, it warrants thought and consideration as to whether or not we should.

Kris Hardiman, Head of Product Management.