The problem this service answers
A channel repositioning is being prepared and the internal debate keeps circling because everyone is describing the competition from a different angle, with no shared set of criteria.
Repositioning decisions are usually taken with a distorted view of the competitive set. Each department describes rivals through its own lens: programming sees slots, marketing sees brand, distribution sees carriage, sales sees inventory. Without a shared frame, the discussion becomes an argument about impressions rather than an arbitration between options.
A benchmark is only useful if it is honest about its criteria. Comparisons built to confirm a conclusion already reached are common and easy to produce. The discipline that makes the exercise worthwhile is fixing the criteria before looking at the results and applying them identically to every item compared, including your own service.
What the assignment covers
This service produces a structured comparison of the channels or platforms you designate, against criteria agreed in writing with you before the analysis begins. Those criteria typically cover editorial positioning, schedule architecture or catalogue composition and rotation, brand and interface treatment, distribution and prominence, commercial structure and, where public, performance indicators.
Every item is examined on the same grid, including your own service if you want it included, which is usually the most instructive part of the exercise. Uniform treatment is what makes the result usable in an internal arbitration, since it removes the possibility of a comparison being shaped by how closely each competitor was examined.
The output states differences and their implications rather than ranking. A channel that invests heavily in one part of its schedule is making a trade-off elsewhere, and describing that trade-off is more useful than declaring a winner. Where a criterion cannot be assessed from public material, the benchmark records that gap explicitly.
How we work on it
- We agree on the comparison perimeter and on the criteria, in writing, before any analysis starts.
- A common observation grid is built so that every item is examined on identical dimensions.
- Material is collected for each item over the same observation period.
- Each criterion is assessed with the same method across all items, including gaps in available material.
- Differences are analysed as trade-offs rather than scored against an implicit ideal.
- The benchmark is delivered with its criteria, its observation period and its limits stated.
Where the information comes from
Sources are selected with you at the start of the assignment and reviewed as the subject evolves.
- Schedules, catalogues and service interfaces observed over a defined period.
- Corporate and commercial communication from the channels and platforms compared.
- Distribution and carriage information, including operator and device availability.
- Published measurement and performance indicators where they exist for the perimeter.
- Regulatory publications documenting obligations and commitments per service.
Possible deliverables
The format is chosen with you. A single assignment can combine several of them.
- A comparative benchmark document with criteria and observation period stated.
- A structured comparison table usable directly in internal discussions.
- A positioning reading showing where services converge and where they differentiate.
- An analysis of trade-offs made by each service across the criteria examined.
- An explicit record of criteria that could not be assessed from public material.
Who this service is designed for
What this service does not promise
A benchmark compares what is publicly observable over a stated period. It does not access internal strategy, undisclosed performance or contractual terms, and it does not prescribe which position you should adopt.
How to start
Tell us which services should be compared and what decision the benchmark supports. We will propose the criteria in writing and fix them before starting the analysis.