Each year the lead-in to Black Friday gets extended, with deal ads starting in October and the actual Black Friday (11/26) day itself starting for many retailers on Wednesday, November 25.  Last year many brick & mortar retailers gave workers Black Friday off and closed stores to avoid crowds during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and relied on increased on-line sales to make up the in-store selling day loss.  While we expect there might still be some store closings, on-line shopping has already become so ingrained in our culture, especially in the 25 – 34 year old bracket, that missing the overnight camp-outs in front of Wal-Mart (WMT) will likely not be missed by many.  In fact, a recent survey of 1,000 consumers who plan to shop between September and Cyber-Monday indicated that only 30% of respondents thought that stores should still remain open and have door buster sales, with 39% preferred the stores to stay open but have no door buster sales, while 31% stated that they would prefer the stores to remain closed on Black Friday. 
On a more general basis, an Offers.com (ZD) survey indicated that 20% of shoppers expected to increase spending during the holidays this year while 21% expected to reduce spending, so the overall consumer spending pattern will likely remain on track with recent years.  That said, now that the press has taken up the story on supply chain issues that might affect holiday deliveries, Black Friday early discounting serves the purpose of lengthening the time when orders might be placed, which gives retailers more wiggle room on delivery schedules, so said supply chain issues do lend some legitimacy to an extended holiday season, but at the same time consumers have also become used to those last minute ‘Super Savings Discounts’ that pop-up on peak buying days, which might not look as attractive if discounting has been in place for over a month.  That, coupled with consumer electronics’ inflationary characteristics this year could make it a bit more difficult for consumers to find the bargains they have become used to, especially if there are delays in delivery times.

While it is impossible to get an accurate picture of holiday CE deals across a large swath of products, we look back at one area where we have hard data, Samsung’s (005930.KS) Mini-LED/QD TV line, which we have been tracking since the products were announced in May.  As a reminder, this was the first year Samsung has offered a TV line that was based on Mini-LEDs, which gives us the opportunity to see how effectively Samsung priced the models at the onset, and how those prices have been trending to date, especially as we head into the holiday season.  We check Samsung’s Mini-LED/QD TV prices roughly every two weeks, although when we are contacted by Samsung as to ‘price drops on products you have viewed’, we check to see if there are any unusual pricing movements.
Based on our data, it seems that Samsung has already begun its holiday discounting program, at least for its Mini-LED/QD TV line, as the most recent tally has indicated that prices for much of the line have again reached their lowest point since release in late May.  In fact of the 33 models we track, 29 are at their lowest point since release, while 2 are at their highest (actually unchanged from the initial price) and the top of the Mini-LED/QD line (8K) is now 36.7% below the initial price, dropping over 10% over the last week, while the 4K Mini-LED/QD are down less, but also saw price drops between 2.8% and 8.2%.  Samsung’s quantum dot only sets fared a bit better, down between 0.0% (low-end QD only line) and 4.4% (hi-end QD only). 
While these prices, especially at the high-end of the line are significantly discounted from initial list price, they are also competing with Mini-LED TV price leader TCL (000100.CH), who is on their 3rd Mini-LED/QD iteration, and LG Electronics (066570.KS), who has pricing more comparable to Samsung.  TCL has far less name recognition in the US than either Samsung or LG, but has gained much recognition as a low-cost alternative to premium sets from other major TV brands at retailer Best Buy (BBY).  While feature-to-feature comparisons are difficult, TCL’s Series 6 Mini-LED/QD line directly competes with Samsung’s 4K Mini-LED/QD line and while TCL offers a limited number of comparative models, they are priced far below even Samsung’s lowest tier Mini-LED/QD sets.  TCL has already discounted their Mini-LED TV sets from list, so we would expect less discounting going forward, but with models between 46.2% and 51.9% below Samsung’s comparative pricing, the difference to consumers is obvious and continues to keep Samsung Mini-LED/QD prices under pressure.

We have seen estimates for OLED TV shipments increase this year, increasing from just under 6m units (est. in 2020) to over 6.1m and more recently to 6.5m units, with shipments in 1H more than double last year’s 1H.  There are two reasons for the increase in OLED TV sales this year, the first being LG Display’s (LPL) increased capacity, along with the increased availability of smaller sized (48”) models, which carry a lower price and therefore can increase the overall unit volume.  The second, and most important is the price of OLED TVs, which both in absolute terms and against rival LCD TVs have worked toward increasing overall unit volume.
LG Display continues to increase its OLED TV production efficiency using MMG (Multi-mode glass), a process that allows for the production of multiple size panels on a single sheet of substrate, which can improve substrate usage efficiency by very substantial amounts (see table below). This allows LG Display to reduce OLED panel prices while maintaining margins and allows OLED TV set brands to lower OLED set prices during a period when LCD TV set prices have been rising.  In order to quantify just how much OLED TV prices have moved this year, we looked at all 12 OLED TV models released by LG Electronics (066570.KS) this year and tracked pricing from its initial price through current selling price.  We note that all prices shown are from Amazon (AMZN) and not 3rd party sellers, and excludes a number of LG’s more esoteric OLED products such as its rollable TV.
Of the 12 OLED models, all were at their lowest price points for the year and only one model saw a peak higher than its initial price.  The entire line has seen an average price drop of 27.1% from initial pricing, and a 28.5% from peak pricing.  48” sets saw the biggest decrease, averaging 36.3% from peak, while 83” saw the least, dropping an average of 22.3% from peak, while 55”, 65”, and 77” saw price drops of 26.9%, 30.0%, and 25.7% respectively.  While OLED TVs are still generally more expensive than LCD or quantum dot enhanced LCD TVs, and still fall into the ‘premium TV’ category, they have become far more affordable this year than in the past, especially relative to their biggest competitor, LCD TVs.  We do note that as LCD TV panel prices decline, as they have been doing for the last two months, some of the relative price difference will be eaten away, but given that a considerable amount of high-priced TV panel inventory still exists in production or transport, we expect lower TV prices will take some time to appear in full stead.  In the interim OLED TV will have a good year.

3D TVs have come and gone and VR, well if you don’t mind wearing a set of goggles, it can be effective for those who are not affected by motion sickness and visual disorientation, but there is another variety of 3D that is gaining popularity and does not need glasses, helmets, or anything unusual to view, although you will certainly not be sitting in your living room when watching it.  This form of 3D is becoming popular in China, although certainly not limited geographically, but at the moment its not for home use but rather for advertising, and is very effective at attracting attention.
The technology, loosely called naked eye 3D is based on a combination of hardware and software that is used to create short video advertisements on specialized massive LED displays found in public locations.  The LED displays themselves are huge, usually covering the face and side of a large building, a story or so above the street, but tend to be far denser than the usual ‘Time Square’- like advertising boards in terms of the number of LEDs.  Of course this makes for complex installations and very large numbers of smaller LEDs, making the projects expensive, but the advertising potential for these outdoor displays is quite high.
The technology is not just the hardware, as the image creation itself must be carefully controlled, but the techniques for creating naked eye 3D content are not a complex as one might think.   The most typical way to create depth in a flat image is by the use of occlusion relationships, such as superimposing lines in front and behind two identical images as shown in Fig. 2.  While nothing in the image has actually changed, our brain takes the lines as cues and we perceive the right image as being closer.  Unfortunately superimposing lines across video content is not an effective method for creating 3D content, but there are other ways to produce 3D on a 2D plane.

Bezels, the outer, non-display part of many displays, are considered bad by most consumers.  Everybody wants bezel-less smartphones and TVs that make images look like they are floating in space, but bezels can be used to create 3D images in a 2D world by creating ‘virtual bezels’.  By creating a ‘virtual bezel’, essentially a black frame around a video image, our brains can again be fooled into thinking that images are ‘coming out of the screen’.  Here’s how that works:

Here’ is our tree again in a normal screen view, but if we ‘expand’ that black border, not physically, but as part of the video, we can create the same effect as superimposing lines might have.  Note that using the term bezel might be confusing here, as this is really a visual ‘bezel’ created during editing rather than a physical one, but you can see that by placing objects behind or in front of the ‘virtual bezel’, they can be made to look like they are in front of the display, rather than on a flat plane.

​There are other motion parallax techniques that can be used to enhance the realism of moving images, but as the pixel pitch (distance between each LED pixel) decreases in such displays, the realism increases and by bending the display around the corner of a building, the effect of depth is further increased.  Again these displays are all 2D in that they are flat in the same way a TV screen is flat, but the image does not look flat.  Most of the videos use less than the full screen in order to capitalize on the ‘virtual bezel’, which certainly works best at night, but we have seen compositions where the virtual bezel looked exactly like the side of the building, which made the imagery very effective during the day.  More to come.
Watch the short videos below to see this very unusual effect.
https://youtu.be/rScf4OocI7E
https://youtu.be/nWKtIGVPbyc
https://youtu.be/Gzw5240T6P8
 
 

As the CE space heads into the 4th quarter CE brands are beginning to face the reality that TV sales and shipments might not meet the goals that were set for 2021 late last year.  Some brands face the realities of the CE space more quickly than others, but brands must adjust such goals with OEMs and assemblers, who have to make sure they have enough inventory to meet such goals, whatever they are.  This year has presented even more problems for brands, given the semiconductor shortages that have extended component lead times and pushed component ordering to a higher level than might be considered normal.
While demand in the IT space (notebooks, monitors, and tablets) has been strong for most of the year, recent weakness in notebook and Chromebook demand has some brands thinking twice about how they will order for the remainder of the year, but nowhere in the CE space has there been more volatility than with TVs.  A strong 4Q 2020 and a record 1Q 2021, seemed to set the tone for the TV set industry earlier this year with North America being the generator of much of the unit volume and sales growth, but much of that TV enthusiasm came from the 2nd (December 2020 – January 2021) and 3rd (March 2021) stimulus checks paid to US taxpayers. 
However between May ’20 and June of this year, TV panel prices increased rapidly as South Korean panel producers Samsung Display (pvt) and LG Display (LPL) began a program to lower or eliminate LCD large panel production.  While these plans were curtailed to a degree by the rising prices, component shortages gave TV set brands a reason to ‘pad’ orders, for fear that they would be given a smaller than normal allocation from capacity constrained panel producers.  TV set brands continued to be encouraged after the strong 1Q this year, but without a new US economic stimulus in 2Q, things started to unravel quickly.
Panel prices had risen so much at the panel level that set manufacturers could not keep from raising prices at the retail level, and while this was done slowly the cost differential was eating into margins. In 2Q TV panel shipments began to decline, with the industry blaming component shortages, although panel producers still insisted they were not significantly affected by such shortages, leading to our conclusion that ‘real’ demand was waning.  We believe there were two factors that led to the demand slowdown.  Panel price increases that led to consumer facing TV set price hikes, and the COVID-19 vaccine, which began to give consumers the ability to return to a degree of a normal lifestyle and reduced the need for TV viewing and replacement/upgrading.
TV brands however continued to hope that momentum would pick up in 2H as is typically the case, with only Samsung (005930.KS) lowering its expectations for full year shipments from 48m units to 45m units (6.25%).  TV panel shipments continued to slow, yet panel producers were still raising prices up until mid-year, when things began to deteriorate more quickly, with TV aggregate panel prices declining 27.2% (through September) from their peak in July, with expectations that further declines would add to that this month[1].  Shipments have also declined, and while final September data is not yet available, the trend line projection would continue that trend.
It seems TV set brands have now come to the realization that they might not meet the goals that they set for themselves late last year and have begun lowering expectations.  This sets off a reaction across the industry with panel producers first offering volume deals to maintain high utilization rates and then lowering production rates avoid overproduction.  Samsung has again lowered it’s TV set expectations for the year from 45m to 43m units (6.7% and 10.4% from original estimate), while other brands have made larger cuts after holding out for much of the year.  Not all TV brands express their target changes publicly, but just the four in the table below represent over 50% of TV unit volume currently.


[1] Preliminary expectations for October would indicate aggregate TV panel prices would be down 38.5% from the July peak by the end of this month,

The industry will redirect focus on any weakness by shifting attention to ‘premium’ or ‘advanced’ TV products like OLED, Mini-LED, or quantum dot set growth, but it looks like the inevitable result of returning to a more normalized demand cycle is lower expectations for the remainder of the year.  That said, there is some hope for at least a little help during the holiday season, and that would come from the lower panel prices that we have seen during the last 2-3 months.  While higher cost inventory will prevail, if TV panel prices continue to decline at the same rate as they have in August and September there might be a little room for holiday discounting at the end of the year, but much will depend on how quickly the high-cost inventory can be sold through (we are not overly optimistic) and lower priced inventory can be produced.  In order for this to make a significant difference to overall TV sales lots of other parts of the supply chain will also have to cooperate (silicon electronics, transportation, etc.) which is why we are not optimistic, but we thought it worth a mention.
“Change always seems impossible until it’s inevitable.” – Sarah McBride

China’s TCL (000100.CH) is on their 3rd iteration of Mini-LED TVs, while typical leaders Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics (066570.KS) are on their 1st.  As we have noted previously, TCL has also been the price leader in the Mini-LED TV space and is one of the reasons Samsung has been changing prices on its Mini-LED/QD TVs on almost a weekly basis.  That said, TCL also noticed that Samsung’s product line-up is more extensive than theirs and includes a number of high-end models that were not part of the TCL Mini-LED/QD line.  In order to remedy that situation and capture a portion of the premiums associated with such high-end models, TCL has just released two new Mini-LED sets, both 8K models, in three sizes, 85”, 75”, and 65”.
Again, we note that comparing feature sets in TVs is quite difficult as not only are not all features specified for each TV model with the ‘value’ of features specific to a particular brand subject to great variability, but specs like ‘lots of’ or ‘thousands of’ leave a bit too much to the imagination.  That said, what is notable with these new TCL Mini-LED TVs is that while the TCL model shown in the table is 11.3% less expensive than a comparable Samsung set, it is not the more typical 20%+ less featured and less expensive that has been the go to TCL vision.  It seems that TCL has gotten a taste of the ‘high life’ and is willing to play into the same premium pricing plans that Samsung and LG have been working toward, at least for their Mini-LED/QD sets.  Whether TCL will sell enough of such high-end sets to make a difference remains to be seen, but it was likely an easy decision to give it a try now that others have set pricing at the high-end of the market.

3D TVs had their day, becoming commercialized in 2010 and peaking in 2012, but by 2016 the production of 3D TVs had ended.  With no real standardization and an audience in which ~12% could not watch such images without complications and ~30% were unable to fully visualize 3D images, the concept, which in most cases involved the wearing of 3D ‘decoding’ glasses, was considered a fad, despite the success of a number of movies that were shot in 3D.   Another unusual display technology, stretchable displays, has been on the mind of a number of OLED display producers, particularly Samsung Display (pvt), who has shown such at exhibitions over the last few years.   We never could quite understand the attraction for stretchable displays, as the applications were quite limited, but from the standpoint of being able to actually produce such a display, it was a technical accomplishment.
Now SDC has taken both technologies and combined them to create what might be called, for lack of a better name, a stretchable 3D display.  It’s not exactly a 3D display, but if you watch the demo, you can see that the display moves (stretches) in accordance with the content, which in this case is flowing lava.  While watching a TV made with such material might not have the depth that actual 3D technology might have, the fact that the screen could ‘flow’ with the content might be a legitimate application for stretchable display technology.  In this case the demo was made using a 13” panel, so a real commercial product is still far away, but at least it begins to justify all the R&D that has gone into stretchable displays; sort of…
https://youtu.be/kg2Izr6krY0
​

​Much has been said about the ever increasing size of TV sets over the last few years and our recent note (9/1/21) gave some indication as to the variations in available screen size data.  That said, India, as an emerging TV market, has a few characteristics that set it apart from the global data that is focused on the ‘premium’ TV market that includes both large size TVs and what are considered specialty TV products, although what is included in that designation also varies considerably by source.  What does standout however is the difference between both India’s average panel sizes and set pricing and more mature TV markets.  The most popular size TV in the Indian market is 32”, with a 59% share, which compares to ~20.9% in the global TV set market according to Digitimes Research, based in Taiwan.  Pricing in India for 32” TVs runs from $135 to ~$272, while in the US you can grab a Toshiba (6502.JP) 32” Fire TV for the same $135, 32” TVs in the US can run as high as $529 for Samsung’s fancy ‘The Frame’, which becomes a ‘work of art’ when not in use.
Again, due to differences in size categories it is difficult to make direct comparisons as to other TV sizes in India relative to the global markets, one that we can make is the 55” to 65” TV size category.  While this is not part of the ‘ultra-size’ category that goes up to 88+”, it does represent the upper end of consumer demand in India, which represents ~8% of the Indian TV market, while on a global basis that category represents ~21.3% of the market.  The Indian government has a strong interest in developing the TV supply chain, and while it has done so to a degree in terms of TV set assembly, with ~65% of sets sold in India assembled locally, but most of the components, particularly TV panels, are produced outside of the country and India has yet to have been able to attract a panel producer to actually produce panels in country.
As the technology to produce TV panels does not exist in the country, the supposition is that India will need a ‘technology transfer’ from an existing panel producer to initiate a panel production fab on its own.  Normally this would likely entail a complex set of parameters and negotiations with a panel producer and its government, as much LCD technology would fall under the protection of government mandates to protect state technology, but as India seems to still be in the ‘small TV’ era, the sophistication level of that technology have been suggested to be less of an issue than might be the case for 65+” panel production.
In reality, we expect despite the demand for smaller TV panel sizes, it would be unusual for a new fab to be built that would be less than Gen 8, which would not only be an efficient fab for the production of 32” TV panels, but would also be efficient for panel production up to 55”, and that might make negotiations for the technology a bit more complex.  With the biggest producers of 32” TV panels being LG Display (LPL), BOE (200725.CH), and Chinastar (pvt), it would seem rather than negotiating to ‘lease’ the technology to build a state-owned LCD fab in India, it might serve the Indian government better to offer incentives to panel producers themselves, although this has been tried before. 
What is rally missing however is the full infrastructure needed to support a panel production facility, which would include a myriad of other facilities that supply the materials necessary to localize production and keep transportation costs at a reasonable level.  The Indian government is also not known for its ability to maintain a consistent level of funding or even stable policy, which has hampered negotiations in the past, but even with the tense relations that India has with China currently, one would think that some of the smaller Chinese LCD panel producers would be interested in developing such a fab with the support of the Indian government, even if it was just to produce relatively small TV panel sizes.  That said we doubt even the Chinese, who have an iffy record with IP, are likely still not convinced that such a cooperative agreement could be reached and maintained without losing some important IP in the process.

We collect a lot of data.  Units, square meters, ROC, averages, tables, charts, spreadsheets, and amorphous data give us a ‘homey’ feel, but there is one thing that is consistent throughout all the data we look at and compile, it varies.  It varies not because the sources are different but because of the many variables encountered when putting the data together.  Take, for example, monitors.  There is lots of data on monitors that classify them by screen size, say 23.8” monitors.  But when you want to understand pricing for 23.8” monitor panels, it gets a bit more complicated as we can identify 10 different panel brands that produce that size monitor, and 8 or 9 other factors (resolution, brightness, open cell, etc.) that lead to a massive number of possible combinations with each having its own price.  Including or excluding some of those potential combinations from the data set can make a huge difference to the results and that’s where things get funky so we like to average when we can, or present two or more data sets when possible.
TV screen size is an important topic in the CE space as it is the offset to unit volume.  The supply side of the display industry and its vast supply chain are dependent on increasing or at least stable unit volume and an increasing average panel size to counterbalance capacity expansion.  With TV panel sizes being so much larger than IT or mobile device panels,  the TV size metric is all that more important to that balance, but again variations in the data from multiple sources makes much of the data inherently unreliable. 
To get an idea of how that data can vary, we show two data sets indicating the progressive size of TV sets from 2018 to 2026.  We note that while we would expect different forecasts for 2021 through 2026, we would expect 2018 – 2020 to be consistent.  They are not, as the difference between data set actuals (2018 – 2020) ranges from 3.6% to 6.1%, while the differences between the two during the forecasted period ranges from 0% to 5.4%.

So we don’t put a lot of faith in the absolute data but what we can get from some of the data is a bit more on how the data was derived.  In Fig. 1 below we see the Average TV Display Size & Rate of Change since 2018, showing a big jump in TV set size, with the ROC peaking this year and diminishing to between 0.79% and 1.42% y/y through 2026.  However Fig. 1 does not tell the entire story although the data looks normal.  The average in that data set is comprised of two categories, LCD TVs and OLED TVs, with OLED TVs having a larger average set size than LCD TVs in every year.  This presented the problem of trying to understand the mix between LCD and OLED set size data, to see how much of an influence the larger OLED sets made to the average. 
Since that data was not supplied, we calculated the OLED share and show both LCD TV and OLED TV size data in Fig. 2, along with the calculation showing what contribution OLED TV set size had on the average.  The data shows that LCD TV set sizes are growing faster than OLED TV set sizes, and the larger inherent size of OLED TVs and the increasing amount of OLED in the mix helps to support an overall larger average TV set size in the forecasts.  By separating the data we are better able to see whether we agree with the share attributed to the large OLED sets in the mix and better understand if we agree with the data. 
All in, using just this data set we are a bit suspect as to why there would be such a big jump in average TV set size this year and such a fall off over the next few years, especially with the price of TV sets rising substantially  over the last year.  Typically this would slow sales or push consumers to make a step down in TV size to compensate for the higher price, so our skepticism is more about our expectations for TV set prices in 2H.  While TV panel prices have taken a step down in August and are expected to do the same in September, even with the declines in both months, at the end of September TV panel prices would still be up 9.4% for the year and up 66.6% from June 2020 when the increases began.  While the 2 month decrease in panel prices might help TV set sales a bit, it will take some time for the industry to see that lower priced inventory work through retail, so we expect that the expected big jump in TV set size this year might be a bit less than predicted, and if the trend toward declining TV panel prices continues into 2022 and beyond, we expect average TV set size increases to be a bit larger than the data predicts for the out years.  JOHO.

​The art of estimating panel prices is not an easy one.  Data can come from a wide variety of places including panel producers themselves, distributors, and a variety of sources that profess to have access to such hard data, but in most cases there is quite a bit of variation between the data and therefore averages are the best solution.  Some of the discrepancies come from the almost infinite variations in panels, particularly monitor and notebook panels, which makes direct price comparisons quite difficult.  There is less variation in TV panels however and TV panel pricing, while not a perfect science by any means, is a bit easier to sort through, and given that TV panel production still represents a significant portion of LCD display capacity and even more of revenue, price movements in TV panels are significant indicators.
We have already noted the weakness in TV panel prices twice this month (8/6/21, 8/23/21) and have indicated our belief that TV panel prices were destined to correct in previous months, so we continue to monitor data on TV panel prices to see if the drop in September will be greater, the same, or lesser than in August.  Again with the disclaimer that variations in panels can have an effect on price comparisons, it seems that smaller TV panels (32”/43”) are under more price pressure now than they were earlier in the month, which will put more price pressure on Chinese panel producers who are the largest suppliers of such panels to the TV set industry.  With IT panel pricing expected to be flat, panel producers will see additional margin erosion in September, particularly those that supply emerging markets where smaller size TVs are more common.  We expect BOE and LG Display to be the most affected considering external inventory levels for smaller TV panels.

The TV business has been a difficult one this year, with a weak Chinese market leaving growth to come from North America and Europe.  However as lockdowns are reduced the necessity for TV has diminished and coupled with rising prices has left the TV space with little to get enthusiastic about.  Large panel producers have been moving production to more profitable large panel products such as monitors and notebooks and while this would typically tighten the market and sustain panel prices, as we noted yesterday, TV panel prices have begun to fall.  While this is good for set manufacturers, potentially alleviating some of the cost escalation they have seen over the past year, we are less enamored of the generic TV space this year, while more open to growth in the OLED TV space, where panel production is limited to one supplier and is therefore a bit less prone to the competitive nature of the display business.
There are many good points relative to large panel OLED displays, and a number of issues, but from the standpoint of overall picture quality, they are still considered the pinnacle of TV commercial technology.  OLED TVs are more expensive than their LCD brethren, and do face direct and indirect competition from quantum dots and mini-LED technologies, but at least for now, we look at OLED TVs as Wagyu beef against the skirt steak of most LCD TVs.  As LG Display (LPL) is the supplier of almost all large panel OLED displays and LG Electronics (066570.KS) is the premier OLED brand, we look at the company’s current line of OLED TVs, which were announced in late March to see how pricing has changed so far this year.
While there are many LG OLED TVs available on Amazon (AMZN) and sites like Best Buy (BBY) or Costco (COST), we are only looking at the current year’s models, all of which will have a model format that looks like this: 

Therefore all 2021 models will be either G1, C1, or A1, so when hunting through sites for an OLED TV bargain, remember to check the year code to make sure you are getting this year’s models.  Pricing for such sets is usually highest on release, although pre-order deals can make a significant impact on initial set prices, but on a general basis, it is usually best to wait at least 3 – 4 months before buying new models, as prices tend to decline during the summer months.  
 As noted, because LG Display is essentially the only producer of OLED TV panels, OLED TV panel pricing sees far less price competition than with LCD TV panels, however over the last few years, as LG Display increased production and consumers became familiar with OLED TVs, there has been a bit more sensitivity toward set and panel pricing., more a result of improvements in LCD technology rather than direct OLED TV competition.   LG Display has also made improvements in its production methodology and built out capacity at its Guangzhou, China OLED fab, which has helped them to lower costs.  How much of that savings gets passed on to customers remains within LGD, but OLED TV set prices have certainly declined over the last few years as the number of sizes increases (both smaller and larger).
LG Display, likely at the request of LGE, introduced 48” OLED TVs last year, creating a lower price point that has attracted consumers by lowering the OLED TV entry bar to ~$1,200, with short-term discounts by some retailers bringing the price down to just under $1,000, with 48” 4K TVs ranging in price from ~$1,200 to as low as $332 for comparison.  This has caused gamers to look at 4K OLED TVs as potential oversized monitors, with LG promising to release an even smaller (42”) OLED TV specially designed for gamers later this year.  However it looks like LG has postponed that release until 2022 to avoid it getting lost among sets being released for the 2021 holidays and is now expected to preview the new size at CES next January.  LG already includes a few features that gamers desire, such as 120 Hz refresh rate, Dolby (DLB) Vision Gaming, but will add direct support for gaming consoles to the 42” model.

​With weaker TV panel prices expected in 2H, OLED TVs will have a tougher time competing against LCD and its variants, but we expect there could be a very different OLED TV market developing in 2022 and 2023.  If Samsung Display (pvt) is successful in developing a process for producing RGB OLED TVs (see our note 8/2/21, 8/16/21), LG Display could face significant competition and price pressure.  While we expect costs for even this new OLED process to be high at the onset, just the fact that there will be a new large panel OLED producer will change the OLED TV market, with consumers likely seeing lower priced product.  Much will depend on Samsung Display’s process and whether they are able to solve the myriad of potential problems that arise when moving from pilot lines to mass production lines, but we expect consumers will benefit.