MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Viacom18: Creating a Sustainable Video Streaming (OTT) Business in India

2024· article· en· W4411038965 on OpenAlexaff
Mohanbir Sawhney, Debdutta Choudhury, Karan Taurani

Bibliographic record

VenueKellogg School of Management Cases · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSouth Asian Cinema and Culture
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessVideo streamingMarketingProcess managementIndustrial organizationBusiness administrationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Viacom18, a Reliance Industries Ltd. company, acquired the streaming rights for the popular Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket tournament for 2023-2027 for a whopping $2.89 billion. Unlike the previous rights holder, Disney+Hotstar, which put the streaming behind a paywall, Viacom18 decided to offer free streaming, betting on increased advertisement revenue from a massive increase in viewership. However, the free streaming for the 2023 IPL season only brought in advertisement revenues of $276 million against a projection of $450 million. The Viacom18 team needed to rethink its mix of advertising and subscription revenue. It had three options: a pure advertising-supported model (AVoD); a subscription model with packages for the IPL, possibly including a cheaper package with ad-supported content; and a blended business model that would combine the AVoD model with a small subscription fee (sachet pricing) specifically for the IPL. If the advertising-based model had created a large enough user base, it would have attracted advertisers and generated a profit. In the 2023 season, however, it produced only 60% of projected revenues, which was insufficient to pay the IPL licensing fee. On the other hand, a subscription-based model, although likely to create more revenue per user, would dramatically reduce the customer base because of Indian consumers' price sensitivity. Such a model also might not meet revenue expectations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKellogg School of Management CasesSame topicSouth Asian Cinema and CultureFrench-language works237,207