Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Yan Vasiutovich's avatar

Really enjoyed reading this piece of work as well as the one from the previous week.

I would love to add one thread that I think reinforces the advertising-mix argument from the hardware side: Roku OS is structurally pre-installed on value-to-mid tier TVs (TCL, Hisense, Westinghouse, RCA, Haier, licensed Philips, plus Roku's own Select/Plus). Samsung and LG own the $800+ premium shelf; Sony runs Google TV. That means Roku's installed base skews lower-to-middle income by design.

This specific audience consistently picks ad-supported tiers over ad free, which caps Roku's subscription rev share per household but creates exactly the ad inventory Roku monetizes through ACR, FAST, and home screen real estate. Ad-supported ARPU now matches ad-free at Netflix/Disney given $40–60 CPMs, so the demographic weakness on subs is the demographic strength on ads.

Which is also why Fox is the right partner. Tubi, O&O local broadcast, and live sports/news all match the audience. A Disney pairing would have been fighting the demographic; Fox is leaning into it. The 60.5% ad gross margin vs 41.1% subs margin you flagged is the cleanest evidence that the structural design works.

Also want to add a pushback on something from the previous Fox + Roku deep dive you did last week where you mentioned that "consumers voted for Roku with their wallets". I came across an article on FT that cited Wolfe Research saying the majority of consumers actually have no OS preference or prefer something else. If that's right, the Switzerland model is more fragile than mutual economics suggest and market might be right to be careful about it. Netflix and Disney wouldn't need to pull their apps if something goes wrong. they'd just slowly lean into Fire TV, Google TV, and Vizio/Walmart and let share shift at the hardware refresh cycle.

Would love to hear your thoughts on it and thank you again for this article!

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?