Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
This report suggests that linear TV will only save itself if it comes up with something innovative to make such viewing an attractive option, which is what I've been saying for the last three or four years.
Sadly, I cannot think what that could be, can you?
https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2018...signs-of-life/ |
Nope.
It's the same as high street shops.
It used to be exciting going into department stores and browsing all their multiple selections and walking along the high street browsing the multiple different shops. But the shops never changed. They replicated themselves so that every high street looked identical to each other with the same chain shops and people got bored with them, then Amazon and other online players came along...
Why would future generations (assuming they can afford to pay for the streamers), choose tv channels, most with adverts, over instantly available shows ad free?
As I keep saying in others threads, the biggest piece of evidence I can put forward as to why we're into a whole different world with tv now and why linear will decline somewhat is simply to look at what Rupert Murdoch did.
He built up a company over decades, only for Netflix to come along and destroy the business model he knows.
The days of television being dominated by a few broadcast channels ended when Rupert Murdoch launched Sky. He was the disrupter, the new kid on the block then.
The days of linear tv dominating ended when Reed Hastings decided sending DVDs out to people was a pain in the arse and it was much better to stream all the stuff over the internet. Things move on. Simple as that.
(Having stuff like Jeremy Kyle and Come Dine with Me, just hastens the inevitable decline of most linear tv.)