Commentary: If Streaming TV, OTT Services Want To Be Taken Seriously, They Need To Release Subscription Numbers

There have probably been hundreds of stories written over the past several years bemoaning Netflix's decision to not publicly share viewer numbers. But whether or not you think that's a good decision, you can still judge the success of the company using publicly available metrics such as subscriber numbers.

That's not the case with the growing number of streaming services offering a broadband-only lineup of cable TV networks. Known in the industry as "skinny bundles," these services are targeting viewers unhappy with traditional cable options or those people who currently have "cut the cord" and don't subscribe to a cable or satellite TV service.

These new services seem to be carving out a viable niche in the marketplace and I think their growth is a positive for TV viewers. But for these alternatives to be fairly valued in the marketplace, they need to meet at least the industry standard levels of disclosure. Most importantly, revealing the number of current subscribers to their services.

How many people have subscribed to Playstation's Vue service? A recent report in Bloomberg suggests the service has more than 100,000 subscribers. But given the story relies on vaguely knowledgeable sources, there's no way of judging whether it's an accurate number.

The subscriber number is no clearer for Dish Network's Sling TV service, which also declines to discuss subscriber numbers. Instead, the numbers are rolled into Dish's overall subscriber numbers, making it impossible to discern where growth (or decline) is coming from within the overall media company. In February, the Wall Street Journal quoted sources claiming the service had more than 600,000 subscribers. And some more recent reports have set the number at around 700,000. But once again, those are only estimates from presumably interested parties.

To be fair, it's not just these so-called "skinny bundle" services that refuse to release the most basic of metrics. Amazon won't reveal the number of subscribers to their Prime service, which includes access to their Amazon Instant Video streaming service. They also won't disclose the percentage of Prime subscribers who regularly use the streaming part of their subscription, another important metric to judge their success. Earlier in the year, reports estimated the overall Prime subscriber base at either 46 million or 54 million. And those estimates are based on extrapolation that is either genius or near idiotic:

In late 2013, Amazon said “tens of millions” of people had a Prime membership — so, at a minimum, there were 20 million of them at the time. Last year, Amazon said Prime membership grew 53 percent, giving us a minimum of 30,600,000 members worldwide. And on Thursday, Amazon reported that paid Prime membership grew 51 percent in 2015, giving us a minimum of 46,206,000 Prime members worldwide.

Even if those numbers are accurate, it doesn't tell anyone how many subscribers are actually watching video. And that is the number that matters when comparing Amazon's Instant Video to competing streaming services. Especially since some reports estimate as many as 40 percent of Amazon Prime subscribers don't use the streaming service at all.

CBS may or may not be on track with their standalone CBS All Access subscription service. And is NBCU's Seeso managing to find an audience? Your guess is as good as mine.

I understand the reasons why these subscriber numbers aren't being reported. Revealing them publicly only invites hot takes on whether or not the service is a success and many of the pieces are likely to be written by people who don't understand the nuances of the marketplace.

But potential journalistic ignorance doesn't give these new services an out when it comes to even minimal levels of transparency. Subscriber numbers are not viewer numbers or other more mushy industry metrics. Fair or not, they are an easily understood measure of success.

Disrupting the traditional television business model offers lots of opportunities for aggressive media companies. But true disruption also comes with some obligations. And one of those includes being held publicly accountable for your success or failure in building a subscriber base.

Have thoughts about this story? Email Rick Ellis at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or follow him on Twitter at @aysrick.