VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[OLD BOY]

It won't.

http://mandetech.com/2011/03/13/tv-in-20-years/

The explosion in content and content sources puts pressure on existing business models to change. Viewers are no longer captive to producers constraints, they can get the content they want at any time. As a result, the old business models of captive audience and advertising supported content must change to reflect the realities that people now control the medium rather than the other way around.
As a result of technology changes that enabled time-shifting and on-the-go content consumption, viewers behaviors are changing dramatically. As a result of increases in time shifting, over 40 percent of viewers now watch the programs at their own convenience and schedule rather than when the content is broadcast. People can get to their programs through multiple channels and platforms, and as a result are not dependent upon the original sources for the content.

[Horizon]

A little statistic released by the BBC recently was about which show they had sold the most times all around the world. Not Dr Who. Not Top Gear. Certainly not Eastenders. But Keeping Up Appearances.

Once upon a time you could switch on the tv and have a choice of dramas, comedies, factual, entertainment as well as other genres to choose from. Not any more. Reality and soap dominate.

Oh heck, my eyes must be deceiving me....there are actually two dramas on the main channels now!

[denphone]

If people look a bit more there are far more drama series on then one imagines.

[Horizon]

The following report came out before the advent of streaming, so the situation is even more critical now. An interesting read, if you have the time:

https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports...dEntertain.pdf

---------- Post added at 21:20 ---------- Previous post was at 21:19 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

If people look a bit more there are far more drama series on then one imagines.

Have you ever tried to navigate the EPG using a tivo?

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Horizon

A little statistic released by the BBC recently was about which show they had sold the most times all around the world. Not Dr Who. Not Top Gear. Certainly not Eastenders. But Keeping Up Appearances.

Once upon a time you could switch on the tv and have a choice of dramas, comedies, factual, entertainment as well as other genres to choose from. Not any more. Reality and soap dominate.

Oh heck, my eyes must be deceiving me....there are actually two dramas on the main channels now!

If you have pay tv why just look at the terrestrial channels , there are many dramas spread across the numerous pay tv channels.

I agree with your point about the terrestrial channels though we watch very little on them and hardly anything appeals to us from the BBC.

[Horizon]

And for those that defend ITV, I present as evidence: ITV Be.

Case closed.

Now if there were something on, I wouldn't be on here!

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Horizon

The following report came out before the advent of streaming, so the situation is even more critical now. An interesting read, if you have the time:

https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports...dEntertain.pdf

---------- Post added at 21:20 ---------- Previous post was at 21:19 ----------

Have you ever tried to navigate the EPG using a tivo?

Yes its rather easy on our TiVo.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

If you have pay tv why just look at the terrestrial channels , there are many dramas spread across the numerous pay tv channels.

I agree with your point about the terrestrial channels though we watch very little on them and hardly anything appeals to us from the BBC.

Have a look at the report I linked to, very relevant for this thread. The report is very much against the status quo aka the terrestrial broadcasters, major production houses etc.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Horizon

The following report came out before the advent of streaming, so the situation is even more critical now. An interesting read, if you have the time:

https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports...dEntertain.pdf

Excellent read, thank you for linking it.

Quoted from the conclusion:

The right response is clear: if the market is providing more – and it is – the stateshould do less. So it is time to accept that public sector broadcasting only has avery limited role to play in the age of multi-channel television. The remit and fundingof the BBC should steadily be reduced and the other terrestrial broadcasters given the freedom to succeed or fail according to how well they meet the needs of their viewers. Let’s put people, rather than politicians, in charge of broadcasting.

[steveh]

This is a really excellent piece on the changes happening as US TV transitions away from linear TV:

TV Has a Business Model Problem. And It's Killing Good TV

Despite record profits, more original scripted series were canceled in 2014 than even aired 15 years earlier. Not only are most of these failures unnecessary, they'll continue to escalate until networks update their metrics and business models for the digital era. The question is, will audiences stick around long enough?

http://redef.com/original/there-isnt...tor=MediaREDEF

[harry_hitch]

OB thanks for the reply. I wont quote your entire post, I will try and save the space.

I wont debate about NowTV either, because as you allude to, no-one knows what is it's main use.

As for Netflix, I can see it rising above £20 in 10 years time, it is already nearly £10, and it has raised prices rapidly in recent years.

There are a number of things not to like with your first point. Mainly, how will being limited to one streaming service a year be fair to poorer families? There will only be so much content available, and how anyone could stretch that out over 12 months is beyond me. What also happens when the poorer families get hooked onto the exclusive shows that their one streaming service provides? They then have a choice to either keep the same old content for another 12 months, just for a couple of shows or risk losing those shows for some more variety. Lets also say these poorer families all have Now TV because that's all they can afford. What happens if, when linear tv "dies out" and the poorer families watch 2 shows one on Universal and one on Fox. These two seperate channels, then become independent streaming services each keeping their shows. All of a sudden, they have to a make a choice to pay more than they currently do to watch one of their favourites show and lose the other. Don't forget, if we have streaming services only, I have no doubt Universal, Fox etc would all release their own services. Sky (I believe) have stakes in these channels, but I doubt they could stop them launching streaming independent streaming services. That seems rather an unfair on the poorer members of society. What would you do if you were in that situation and little money? Would you be happy with that option?

Point 2 - I don't remember how this one started, and I am lost as to why you are talking about bbc subscriptions. Regarding PPV, people who do pay are those who can afford to, or chose to. I choose not to. I am glad agree PPV is expensive though, I trust you won't suggest it again in future now.

Point 3 - Okay, yup there is plenty of dumbed down stuff on Sky. There is plenty on Netflix too though.

Point 4/6 - How many advertising banners will you accept though. I don't think you fully grasp how much ad revenue will be required to help keep subscriptions down, especially for the costs of exclusive world-wide rights. Lets try and figure out some very basic costs. Netflix operates in about 200 countries, with 75 million customers. Lets say each customer pays on average £6.99 (I am aware some countries may cost less than the UK, so have lowered the average price below the UK price) to run as it currently stands. Lets say Netflix win rights for just one single show, and the rights cost £500,000 for that shows rights in each country it operates in. (I imagine it will cost more that that, but happy to be wrong). The cost for one show, alone, would cost £100,000,000 extra, that is £1.50 extra per customer. Lets say they win rights to 20 shows, that will be £30 extra per customer. You are talking crazy prices for exclusive world wide rights. Lets say Netflix double their customer base, it's still £15 extra per customer, and that is already taking over the £20 you mentioned in point 1. This, does not of course include any global film rights - imagine the cost of those!!

Point 7 - Indian summers is now coming to C4.

How attractive would Netflix be to you without the BBC, Channel 4, Fox and universal tv show content alone, let alone all the films they own? How many shows and films would be lost? Hundreds and hundreds. I can not imagine they will be as such good value as they are now.

I am once again losing the will to live with this thread, but I await your reply.

[RichardCoulter]

Talking of Indian summers...

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201603074...#axzz429GGJdKP

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

There are a number of things not to like with your first point. Mainly, how will being limited to one streaming service a year be fair to poorer families? There will only be so much content available, and how anyone could stretch that out over 12 months is beyond me. What also happens when the poorer families get hooked onto the exclusive shows that their one streaming service provides? They then have a choice to either keep the same old content for another 12 months, just for a couple of shows or risk losing those shows for some more variety. Lets also say these poorer families all have Now TV because that's all they can afford. What happens if, when linear tv "dies out" and the poorer families watch 2 shows one on Universal and one on Fox. These two seperate channels, then become independent streaming services each keeping their shows. All of a sudden, they have to a make a choice to pay more than they currently do to watch one of their favourites show and lose the other. Don't forget, if we have streaming services only, I have no doubt Universal, Fox etc would all release their own services. Sky (I believe) have stakes in these channels, but I doubt they could stop them launching streaming independent streaming services. That seems rather an unfair on the poorer members of society. What would you do if you were in that situation and little money? Would you be happy with that option?

Point 1.Well, don't forget that as well as a good streaming service such as Netflix, there will also be other options available. The various free players will still be there to give viewers the opportunity to watch the likes of ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 programmes, and I expect others will pop up as well over time.

I really do fail to see why you think that there is so little content on Netflix or Amazon. I am really struggling to see all the things I want to see on Netflix, there is so much on there. I've only scratched the surface of Amazon due to the range of TV programmes I have lined up already. This, coupled with the free players will be more than enough to satisfy a year's worth of viewing, and in my opinion anyway, the material is of better quality overall.

As for missing some exclusive programmes on other platforms, well that is what happens now and I don't see that changing, in fact it will probably get worse, even on our present system. Viewers can always watch programmes missed in the first year in the second year, and incidentally, so far it is only Amazon that has annual contracts for streaming services in this country. You shouldn't forget that many cable subscribers want Sky Atlantic because of the few programmes on there that are worth seeing, but choose not to ditch VM for Sky to watch them. The situation you describe is no different really.

There will not necessarily be separate streaming services for all the channels we watch now. It will probably make sense for them to get together so that they can offer a better range of programmes to attract people to their service. Some of these will be funded by non skippable advertisements, which some are quite happy to endure, it seems. However, to maximise their audiences, there is likely to be a subscription option to avoid the ads, in response to consumer preferences.

It is also open to Sky and other providers such as Virgin Media and BT to make financial deals with these companies and provide their subscribers with bundles of streaming services, just as we have with TV channels at the moment. Whether these organisations will want to go down that route, I don't know, but we shall see.

---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:28 ----------

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Point 2 - I don't remember how this one started, and I am lost as to why you are talking about bbc subscriptions. Regarding PPV, people who do pay are those who can afford to, or chose to. I choose not to. I am glad agree PPV is expensive though, I trust you won't suggest it again in future now.

Point 2. Well if there were BBC subscriptions instead of the licence fee, people would have the choice to spend their money on other options. I mentioned PPV because PPV is already out there, and if we eventually get HBO, that will probably operate on a PPV basis. I accept you don't like PPV, but that doesn't mean that some streaming services won't have it.

---------- Post added at 14:33 ---------- Previous post was at 14:31 ----------

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Point 3 - Okay, yup there is plenty of dumbed down stuff on Sky. There is plenty on Netflix too though.

Point 3 True, but there's far more good stuff on Netflix. Just take a look at Sky's schedules on the non-premium channels this week. Is there really much on there worth watching? Now look at the options on Netflix. It's a no brainer really.

---------- Post added at 14:43 ---------- Previous post was at 14:33 ----------

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Point 4/6 - How many advertising banners will you accept though. I don't think you fully grasp how much ad revenue will be required to help keep subscriptions down, especially for the costs of exclusive world-wide rights. Lets try and figure out some very basic costs. Netflix operates in about 200 countries, with 75 million customers. Lets say each customer pays on average £6.99 (I am aware some countries may cost less than the UK, so have lowered the average price below the UK price) to run as it currently stands. Lets say Netflix win rights for just one single show, and the rights cost £500,000 for that shows rights in each country it operates in. (I imagine it will cost more that that, but happy to be wrong). The cost for one show, alone, would cost £100,000,000 extra, that is £1.50 extra per customer. Lets say they win rights to 20 shows, that will be £30 extra per customer. You are talking crazy prices for exclusive world wide rights. Lets say Netflix double their customer base, it's still £15 extra per customer, and that is already taking over the £20 you mentioned in point 1. This, does not of course include any global film rights - imagine the cost of those!!

Points 4-6. There could be advertisements on each page of Netflix alongside the details of the content.

True, global content rights will be high, but that needs to be set in the context that you also have global audiences! The bigger the audience a company can guarantee, the smaller the overall price per customer. Your cost examples are hugely speculative and I won't comment on that, if you don't mind. However, surely you can see that whatever amounts can be generated, any shortfall will have to be addressed in other ways (eg a smaller subscription charge, a less comprehensive menu for those who choose not to pay full price, etc).

---------- Post added at 14:49 ---------- Previous post was at 14:43 ----------

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Point 7 - Indian summers is now coming to C4.

How attractive would Netflix be to you without the BBC, Channel 4, Fox and universal tv show content alone, let alone all the films they own? How many shows and films would be lost? Hundreds and hundreds. I can not imagine they will be as such good value as they are now.

I am once again losing the will to live with this thread, but I await your reply.

Point 7 That's right, and series 1 has already been broadcast. However, all three series are available on All4 (not the Virgin Media version). So when you talk about people having to wait to see their favourite programmes if they can only afford one streaming provider, remember, it also works the other way. If you watch via All4, you can see Indian Summers from start to finish. If you watch via Channel 4, you will be lucky to get to the end of series 3 by the summer of next year!

I don't know why you think any shows will be 'lost'. There will be a number of streaming services and players. The programmes will be on there instead. As for value, the streaming companies will know that there is only room in the market for a certain number of subscription services. Over a certain amount and the revenue for each will start to come down. I believe that the market will sort all of this out.

I am sorry to hear that you are tiring of this thread (although I think you said something like that many pages ago). However, I think that looking into the future and what it may hold in this area is fascinating.

[harry_hitch]

OB, I have never said there is not much content on Netflix or Amazon. The content on Amazon is not tempting to me. Just because you have huge amounts of TV lined up to watch, does not mean others will. I like plenty of the old repeated shows on Netflix, does not mean I would want to watch them all over again, simply because I could only afford one subscription, along with the free channels a year. Incidentally, which other free services due you see popping up?
Fair point on the exclusives.
Will you make your mind up on the streaming services. Are people going to flit between individual monthly subs, (which was your original thought) be contracted to expensive individual annual subscriptions for independent streaming services, thus limiting what people can watch (which is what you then changed your mind to) Or are Sky and VM just going to continue their business model as they currently do and the majority streaming services/channels will still all be available at a fair(ish) price so the majority of people who want such services can enjoy them still? Also, if that would work, why is it not happening in the States yet?

Point 2 - why will HBO be ppv over here? Why will it launch a streaming service when it makes more money from the deal with Sky, and probably amazon now too?

Point 3 - For me, there is very good stuff on Sky, if you above channel number 200, and very good stuff on Netflix. Personally, I would suggest Sky has better over all content, but that's my taste. I accept you think Netflix has more.

Points 4/6 I did the calculations for a global audience that doubled in size OB. I would like you to speculate on the costs though please OB, of both TV and Films. You say it is feasible, so lets see your maths please. With regards a lesser service, unless Netflix plan to rip off the lower tier audience and charge them more than the lesser service is worth, how are they going to make your proposed short fall up?

Point 7 - Of course shows will be lost to people. You have already talked about people missing exclusive shows, and said it will continue to happen. If this ficticiuos market will only have a certain amount of room for a number of subscription services, how are shows not going to be lost? How on earth are the remaining services going to be able to afford the rights to these shows and continue to operate if there revenues start to drop? Yes, they may gain a few more customers from the services that drop away, but they will soon reach the maximum income they can get, and they will than have rising costs to improve the service.

The thread is interesting and I always enjoy a good debate on here. I just tire of your reluctance to acknowledge any issues with your proposals. I have dropped out of the thread before for these reasons, and I may have to again soon, to let someone else try and discuss this with you. I will try not to though.

[steveh]

Viacom dismiss cord cutting and think people still prefer bundling:

People talk to us: “Oh aren’t you worried about cord cutting or cord shaving?” And we’re like, the answer is: Well, first of all, there isn't a lot of definitive evidence of any such phenomenon on a large scale, but the more important point is: People have been able to drive significant growth in the category through new approaches to the market and, again, I think the most powerful one is quad-play, initially as a price bundle, but also as a video bundle.


Vodafone in the UK now sells a 13-channel bundle — they're reselling Sky services on their handsets. They’re said to be introducing a set-top box sometime in 2016. So you’re going to see significant activity in this area and again it’s part of the reason we introduced Play Plex.


There's competition in telecommunication services for consumers. People have choice. In this case, choice is a good thing. So they’re going to look for an easier way to do business. They can buy a bundle instead of paying separate bills. They can pay a better price and, as people are competing for those subscribers, if one of them has better services, where you can get your MTV, or Comedy Central, or CNN, or whatever, on your handset too — well that’s a compelling proposition.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/viacom...terview-2016-2

First time I heard the term 'cord-shaving'.