The water-cooler survives

When the dust settles on the transitional phase of a new, large, fragmented content market with a multitude of options…

PWC – putting breaks on cord cutting revolution

… the result describes a 2/3 concentration & 1/3 fragmentation, not unlike the head & long tail of a power law distribution…

PWC – competitive dynamic

… where the familiar and the traditionally popular still win.

Despite the massive growth in choices, despite the break in scheduled consumption routines, despite the changing habits of seasonal binges…

… the water-cooler conversation survives, which is to say, community

… the fundamental value proposition of all entertainment.

The names

We try to go with “tech”…

WSJ

Which is too broad, and so we try to narrow down the scope… by, say, “software and cloud” guidelines…

Though that doesn’t altogether work, does it, so maybe go with “FANG” or, for good measure, “FANG+” (which, I guess, goes to eleven?)…

Or perhaps reverse the process and define it all based on performance, say, call it “growth,” which is distinct from “value” (but how exactly, in this case?)…

Or maybe if we show in contrast to some others, because “tech” is different from “communication” and “financials”… right? (Take, for instance, Square…)

And it is through distinctions such as these that regulations are proposed and studied…

FT

Because the label, in some cases, is its own definition.

The missing definition

Under any circumstances, I think it would be awkward to investigate wrongdoing before the definition and parameters of what constitutes it have been established.

Market size and segmentation, and even the distinctions between the five subject companies, are all unclear. At a minimum, they compete fiercely with each other.

Even the label “big tech” is arbitrary and probably misguided.

WSJ

This might still just be a misunderstanding.