What's behind the cancellation of Skam Italia?

Behind the cancellation of a fresh and successful TV series, there is a more general (and doubtful) change of strategy in TimVision: from producer to aggregator

COURTESY TIMVISION

More or less four years ago, Netflix made its debut in Italy. His archive was not as rich as it is today, and the titles on which he could leverage were certainly not at the level of those he produced over the years. The real strength of Netflix, in its communication campaign, was its brand. And the idea associated with his brand. You subscribe to Netflix because you thought it was the revolution, the real news, all that years and years of generalist television had denied you. You were convinced that it was a breath of fresh air, even if, on balance, you had no proof. With this approach, the streaming platform has attracted the national attention, it has imposed itself on the market (even if with few subscribers, compared to the competitor Sky) and has grown.

TimVision, for its part, has never tried to circumvent the problem of its archive. He provided offers (one of the first, with Netflix, provided for payment on the bill), and slowly began to produce series and films. One of his most beloved titles is certainly Skam Italia. And this does not mean, nor does it imply, that it is his most successful economic show (which led to more subscribers). But simply that it has become the one with which, over time, TimVision has been associated more often.

In short, no brand strategy at Netflix. No blanket of smoke to sell an idea rather than an actual proposal. But small steps, which have gathered an audience and imposed a certain editorial line (focus on the youngest, better than many others). Now things have changed: Skam Italia has been canceled, and TimVision - therefore Tim - has changed its strategy. Less original productions (what will happen to TimVision Production?), And more titles than other channels and reality.

Taking up the example of Apple TV, TimVision also aims to become an aggregator. A frame in which to collect more offers and subscriptions. At the moment, as La Stampa anticipated, there is talk of a multimillion-dollar agreement with Sky to resolve disputes and, at the same time, to resume the partnership (which should last until 2021). But there are still no effective and precise answers to what will become the platform's editorial line. There are rumors and assumptions. It is clear, however, that neither series nor films will continue to be TimVision's core business. At least, not those produced internally. Apart from the deletion of Skam Italia, it was noted - without official communications - also the abandonment of the project of the genial friend.

Obviously, and this must also be taken into account, Tim and TimVision have costs to bear; and - as all major national and international players and channels do - if they fail to achieve the desired results, they must cut spending and redistribute budgets, just as they seem to be doing. But the question is much deeper and more complicated than that.

First of all, we still don't know if there will be any actual changes in TimVision's offer; and we don't know how much the new subscription will cost, now that aims to act as an aggregator of more reality. The same thing, in northern Europe, Sky did it with Sky Q, collecting more services (Netflix and Spotify, to name two) and increasing - considerably for an average subscriber - the costs.

In addition, in the case of TimVision there has not been a gradual change of gear: the projects that were in the pipeline have been stopped; the leadership has changed; the old managers are gone. Perhaps the situation was so critical that it did not allow the new leaders to take time and reflect, and to try to rethink existing investments. But with the cancellation of Skam Italia, which - again - has never been officially announced by the company, another chasm has opened up: and the public has not found a counterpart ready to respond and explain.

When Netflix canceled Sense8, the fans' insistence forced her, almost literally, to produce a special one. And the evaluation that Netflix made was more communicative than economic: it was simpler and more useful to spend money - even many, a lot of money - in the production of a two-hour film than having to reinvest in social and media strategies to regain the favor of a certain number of subscribers (subscribers, of course, "historians"); and it was better to continue to be reliable and interesting, and available, than to close like a hedgehog.

In TimVision, today, there is a strong communicative short circuit and the absence of a clear editorial strategy (which is obviously different from an industrial strategy). Press releases and official notes focus on the aggregating "revolution", on the news of 5G, on relations with Sky. But there is no trace of the purely television part, internal productions and acquisitions. Here too: it is not clear in what situation the new leaders found themselves.

Tim is a great company, it's true; but large companies know that, in their ramified structuring, they must take every aspect into account. It is not enough to make industrial proclamations; the public, the one that - trivially - pays the subscription of TimVision, needs a real and concrete contact, and answers. Which can be positive and negative, for heaven's sake. But that must be there.

The case of Skam Italia, then, is even more significant. Is it really conceivable that Tim and TimVision could not support the production costs of a last season? And then: haven't the international success and visibility brought by Skam Italia really been evaluated internally?

If the public - very young boys, in most cases - has not subscribed en masse, the problem, perhaps, is also in the communication and the offer. In the way in which, after the second season, next to the debut of the third, it was decided to proceed. Who would subscribe to a streaming platform only for a title?

Let's return to what we were saying at the beginning, like Netflix: here there is not a brand that has built its popularity on an idea; here there is a brand and a reality that tried to specialize in a certain type of production, which tried to sell it, and which failed - even this was not officially confirmed - to get the results they wanted.

Without a communicative clarity and a precise identity, any effort, any decision, risks turning against TimVision itself. Which, of course, is not in crisis (surely, it is not in an economic crisis); but which has proven to no longer be able to support and continue with its previous model and its past editorial line (which, we say it again, does not coincide with the business plan of a company). Now all that remains is to wait: the announcements on the new offer and on the subscriptions for the public (already, the public: in all these proclamations where did it go?); the next productions; the end (or evolution?) of TimVision Production; and a change of course, above all, in communication.

Comments