28 May Ask Skip: Did We Bet Too Big on FAST? [The Streaming Wars]
BY SKIP BUFFERING
May 28, 2025 | Let’s start with the real problem: FAST was never built for performance.
It was built for clearance. For stitching together the leftovers of linear, rerun libraries, and low-cost content into something—anything—that looked like a scalable streaming model. The appeal was obvious: free content, low lift, and built-in distribution on every smart TV. A second chance at the syndication game without paying for marketing or a UX team.
But there’s a difference between a viable business model and a healthy ad product. CPMs aren’t just flat—they’re a ceiling hit by a flood of indistinct inventory. When every OEM, streamer, and Pluto knockoff is programming 80s cop dramas and “Shark Week” reruns, you’re not offering premium ad environments. You’re offering volume. And that means you’re priced like a commodity.
Viewers feel that, too. A FAST grid isn’t a discovery engine—it’s a content landfill. You drop in, surf five channels, and drop out. It’s the definition of passive. Great for “lean-back” time, bad for engagement metrics. No identity, no algorithmic personalization, no cultural hooks. Just another Dr. Phil marathon on a loop.
And advertisers? They’re not just chasing eyeballs. They’re chasing outcomes. When campaigns run across fragmented, brand-unsafe, or undifferentiated FAST placements, performance suffers—and so does trust. Don’t forget: CTV is under pressure to prove itself as more than just a reach extension. If FAST can’t deliver on that, buyers will redirect to AVOD platforms with better targeting, attribution, and content alignment.
Now, let’s talk narrative. The pitch was that FAST would be the “next cable,” minus the bill. But cable didn’t work because it had 100 channels. It worked because it had 10 you actually watched. FAST hasn’t recreated cable—it’s recreated public access TV with better logos.