Carriage disputes, those contentious negotiations between networks and distributors over programming fees, may seem like a distant headache during your ad campaign planning. But for brands and media buyers, they’re a critical hurdle to navigate to ensure your advertisement connects with its audience, especially when they happen during a live event with a large audience on the line.
Along with audience loss and reduced reach, carriage disputes can have significant implications for advertisers: wasted ad spend, decreased ad effectiveness, and reputational damage.
So, how do you navigate a disruption when your ad campaign is caught in the middle?
Here, we break down the key factors behind carriage disputes, how the landscape is evolving, and what your brand can do to stay ahead.
Why do carriage disputes happen?
At their core, carriage disputes arise when agreements between networks and distributors expire, often due to disagreements over pricing or terms. When negotiations falter, channels go dark for the affected distributor’s customers until an agreement is reached. This disruption can have a lasting impact on advertisers and their campaigns, as they are suddenly missing from those channels, risking missed impressions and decreased reach.
The changing landscape of carriage disputes
Carriage disputes can significantly impact media planning and ad buying strategies, especially for brands that rely on TV to reach broad audiences. To effectively minimize risks and create sound strategies, it’s essential to understand how evolving factors have reshaped dispute resolution.
Longer Disputes Due to Financial Pressures and Industry Fragmentation
Carriage disputes, once quickly resolved, now often drag on for extended periods. This change stems from the rise of streaming platforms and cord-cutting. Both networks and cable/satellite providers know viewers can find alternate ways to access content, whether through direct streaming services, apps, or over-the-top (OTT) platforms. As a result, the urgency to settle disputes has diminished, with each side leveraging alternative distribution methods to maintain its audience base.
With declining linear TV viewership and ad revenue, financial pressures on both sides have intensified. Networks demand higher fees to offset revenue losses, while cable providers resist passing on additional costs to already dwindling subscriber bases. This has made negotiations more contentious.
Publishers Have More Power Than Ever
While both sides have challenges to overcome, publishers have more power than ever. The rise of cord-cutting and streaming services has shifted leverage away from cable/satellite providers. Consumers can still access content via direct-to-consumer apps (e.g., ESPN+, Disney+), reducing pressure on publishers to settle quickly.
Strategic Timing of Disputes
Disputes increasingly occur around major events like the Super Bowl, the start of NFL seasons, or other high-profile broadcasts. Networks use these pivotal moments to apply pressure, betting that cable providers can’t afford to frustrate subscribers during such critical viewing windows. Conversely, providers may hold firm, knowing that viewers can temporarily turn to streaming or other options.
Increased Consumer Awareness
Consumers are now more aware of carriage disputes due to social media and targeted campaigns. Providers and networks actively inform viewers through ads, emails, or on-screen messages, urging them to take sides or switch platforms. For example, networks might encourage viewers to subscribe to their streaming service, while cable providers might suggest alternative channels or compensation.
Negotiation Tactics in the Era of Data
Both sides increasingly rely on data analytics to assess the true value of their offerings. For example, networks use viewership metrics to justify their pricing. Cable providers assess the penetration and impact of each network in specific markets to determine their counter offers.
This data-driven approach has made negotiations more precise but also more drawn out, as each side meticulously validates their claims.
How brands can prepare for a dispute
Carriage disputes are an inevitable part of programming, especially around major sports events, as content providers and distributors navigate the shift from traditional cable to streaming. Brands should expect disputes to last longer and plan accordingly, ensuring they have strategies in place to minimize disruption to their campaigns.
Diversify media plans: Relying too much on linear TV makes brands vulnerable to carriage disputes. A balanced mix of CTV, digital video, social, and programmatic reduces dependency on any single channel. Consider cross-platform strategies, ensuring campaigns run across linear, streaming, and digital channels.
Create flexible planning and contingencies: Programmatic and streaming TV buys (e.g., Hulu, YouTube, Roku) provide flexibility to shift spend if traditional TV becomes unavailable. Consider scatter market buys instead of committing 100% to upfronts to maintain agility.
If national networks are affected, local or regional markets may still provide access to target audiences.
If a dispute is likely to impact a high-profile event, pre-plan alternative buys on other networks, digital platforms, or social media. Investing in second-screen strategies (e.g., YouTube, Twitter, TikTok during live sports) ensures continuous engagement.
Fostering a relationship with vendors is key: When a dispute affects a campaign, agencies with strong vendor relationships can negotiate superior makegoods, ensuring clients receive equivalent (or even greater) value in added impressions, bonus weight, or premium inventory. Vendors are more likely to offer exclusive opportunities—such as early access to new ad formats, premium placements on streaming platforms, or custom integrations—to agencies with whom they have strong, long-standing partnerships.
Monitor industry trends: Staying informed on broader industry trends is essential in navigating carriage disputes and ensuring uninterrupted media delivery. Historical patterns show that disputes often escalate during high-demand periods, such as sports seasons or major tentpole events.
How Ocean Media approaches carriage disputes
Ocean Media sets itself apart in handling carriage disputes by adopting a meticulous and client-focused approach.
First, we communicate with our clients the scope of the situation. Unlike many larger agencies that overlook smaller systems or dismiss carriage disputes as insignificant, Ocean Media evaluates every detail, ensuring no audience or market is too small for attention. We conduct an in-depth analysis to quantify the impact of lost viewers and determine how to recapture the value of lost impressions. This comprehensive approach ensures that clients’ investments are protected and maximized, no matter the scale of the dispute.
Additionally, Ocean Media leverages a dedicated process and point person for managing disputes, fostering consistency and accountability. The team stays proactive by maintaining strong relationships with vendors and reps, often receiving advanced notice of potential disruptions. These relationships allow the agency to take preemptive measures, such as negotiating lower rates, reallocating ad placements, or adjusting strategies in real-time.
By combining diligent oversight, negotiation expertise, and strong vendor communication, Ocean Media demonstrates its commitment to treating every client dollar with respect and care, offering a clear competitive edge in a space where attention to detail truly matters.