Les Moonves And The Unbearable Lightness Of Media Reporting

I spent some time in the Bay Area covering the tech industry and one of the hallmarks of that reporting beat was how difficult it was to get accurate data from the companies I was covering. You hear a lot of great-sounding terms like "record results" and "100% growth in customer base." But what reporters didn't get was hard data about essential things like revenue streams and customer retention. That lack of transparency was one of the reasons behind the well-known tech bubble of the early 2000s. Without transparency, without revealing actual verifiable results, a company could hide their flaws until it was too late to turns things around.

As the Hollywood and Tech worlds have merged, one thing both beats have in common is the unwillingness to share verifiable numbers about performance and revenue. Forget the constant carping about Netflix not wanting to release viewing numbers. Netflix is right. The number of people watching "House Of Cards" has no impact on whether or not the company as a whole is succeeding. Unless you had access to retention rates and other data points, the viewing numbers are more talking points for media reporters than anyone else.

What's more troubling to me is that media companies are increasingly willing to hide important numbers from the press and stock holders. CEOs have no problems giving interviews that throw around vague bragging about success. But without hard numbers, it ends up being the financial equivalent of a man arguing he's the best lay you'll ever have.

As an example, Amazon doesn't report the number of subscribers to its Amazon Prime service, which includes free access to its streaming video service. Outsiders have no clue about the numbers, although some people have used outside polling to try and estimate the figure. But the truth is that we don't know for sure how many people subscribe, much less the as important number of Prime subscribers that actually watch the free video offerings.

This lack of transparency builds on itself and the result is result is media reporting that is built on such flimsy numbers that it's probably just about as accurate to just randomly pick some figures and go from there.

As an example, let's look at the large number of stories posted Wednesday that included a headline in which CBS head Les Moonves touted the performance of the network's CBS All Access streaming offering. This is the idea that the company is building its core streaming and OTT future around in the short term. It's a $5.99 a month subscription service that offers access to next-day viewing of current episodes, along with a variety of older shows and some complete seasons of current programs. It also offers live viewing of local CBS affiliates, although that is currently limited to only CBS owned-and-operated TV stations.

At an appearance at the Deutsche Bank 2015 Media, Internet and Telecom Conference in Florida conference on Wednesday, Moonves talked about the initial reception to All Access, describing the response as "beyond our projections" and said the service is "doing well." He didn't offer even a vague suggestion of subscriber numbers in his talk. Although in response to a question asking if the number of subscribers was larger than the 100,000 people who had reportedly sampled Dish Network's Sling TV, Moonves responded that "It's more than that number. I'll let you know that."

That comment sparked a number of headlines along the lines of this one in the Hollywood Reporter: "CBS All Access Streaming Service Has More Than 100,000 Subs, Leslie Moonves Says." Great news, right? Well.....

There are a lot of problems with this story, aside from the point that Dish's Sling TV and CBS' All Access aren't remotely close to being similar services. It's somewhat like comparing the sales numbers of a weed whacker to that of a riding lawn mower.

Then there's the problem with Sling TV's 100,000 subscriber estimate. That well-repeated number came from a re/code piece that reported the 100,000 figure as coming from "sources." That's the entirety of the attribution. Sources at the company? Sources at a rival company? Sources from an industry analyst? We don't know. Reading the story closely, I'm assuming that the source might be from outside Dish, since the story does quote an anonymous "executive familiar with the service" as describing the response as "encouraging." Note that the source isn't described as an executive with the company, so who knows where this info came from or how accurate it might be.

Even worse, even if the 100,000 figure was accurate, it doesn't tell the whole story. What's the retention rate for subscribers? Are all of these subscribers paying the full price? All of these facts are important to putting the figure in context and of course, this is the data Dish doesn't want to share.

So Moonves is being asked to compare the All Access subscriber numbers to Sling TV is a bit idiotic to begin with. But his description of its subscriber numbers as being more than Sling TV's is equally idiotic. Are we talking 100,001 subscribers or 500,000? How many people stick around after the trial period is over? And how many subscribers are paying full price? CBS is offering several discounts, including one that offers a 20% discount to people who leave the service after the trial period is over.

Without context, the Moonves comments are not entirely useless. But they're only helpful in the same way that it helps when you tell your partner they look great in that new pair of pants. Maybe they do look great but maybe you're just trying to put the best spin on a disappointing situation.

Look, I'm not expecting Les Moonves, Amazon or anyone else to be more forthcoming about their performance numbers. In fact, it's in their best interest to be as vague and optimistic as possible. But I would like for reporters to be a bit more skeptical about their vague claims of success.