Re: The future of television
 

I don't have a dog in this particular fight,

but just thought I'd drop this here for you.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2021...ely-happening/

Re: The future of television
 

Thanks for this - I agree with what they are saying, that the trend is towards streaming, but I also agree with what else they said - that streaming will co-exist with linear, not replace it completely.

Re: The future of television
 

That’s what 99% of the contributors envisage. And yes thanks Pierre for directing us to an interesting read.

Interesting that Discovery describe existing customer relationships as “currency” - certainly makes it sound like Sky and Virgin will be well placed for the foreseeable.

Much less interesting than Pierre's link above but linked to the subject matter is this about streaming lag.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...ates-fans.html

Re: The future of television
 

I think Now does it that way to discourage viewers from streaming the same shows simultaneously, as Now would probably need to invest in more capacity to do this. As such costs come down and the broadband infrastructure improves, Now might even give its linear channels more prominence in the future.

Re: The future of television
 

It also flattens because the streamers aren't reaching the viewers who prefer to watch scheduled programmes rather than seeking it out on demand. It will possibly start to dip for established streaming services as more entrants join the streaming market and competition kicks in.

---------- Post added at 20:31 ---------- Previous post was at 20:21 ----------


"He gave the example of “the sub-35 year-olds,” and said that half of this age group in the UK do not engage with national broadcasters on a regular basis, instead opting for YouTube."


The trend of sub-35 year olds preferring YouTube to broadcasters will be a problem for all broadcasters, whatever the platform. Growing up with short form videos and TikTok content doesn't really help to develop their attention span. ;)

Re: The future of television
 

Looks to me that the VM strategy is to hold out for better deals from the streamers because they think the the streamers will eventually need them, so won't be offering any more anytime soon (it was said that the Disney+ negotiations failed because VM wanted a bigger cut of the subscription money).

Whilst VM are playing their usual waiting game in the hope of a more financially advantageous deal (as we have seen do for years with linear channels) the Sky strategy seems to be to embrace the streamers as all the most popular ones are already on there.

A dangerous gamble to take whilst linear channels continue to be pulled and VM customers gradually lose access to content with no reduction in subscriptions (in fact quite the opposite).

Re: The future of television
 

Sky has always marketed itself based on quantity of content (in the past, this was number of channels, and exclusive content on some of them). Once they’ve got the most stuff, they can charge a premium for the service and can afford lower shares from the content providers, at least initially. When they come to dominate the market they turn the tables and it suddenly gets a fair bit more expensive for content providers to access the platform.

However, as streamers can access customers directly in a way linear channel providers can’t, I think Sky will have a harder time repeating the strategy that served them so well last time around.

Re: The future of television
 

The same strategy should work for Sky with the streamers. The key is the content, and you can see why Sky like to integrate this with its other packages. It seems to be what people are increasingly demanding - all content easily accessible from one box.

Certain CF members excepted, of course.

---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:32 ----------

Happily, attention spans tend to increase with age! They will adopt the streamers more readily as they get older and they won’t be bothering with inflexible TV channels.

Re: The future of television
 

Nobody disputes the convenience of everything on one box OB, but I fail to see what world “streamers” take their content from Sky, establish direct customer relationships and then put the content back in an integrated package from Sky.

The whole point of the exercise is to make money and therefore not rely on the pennies per month per subscriber that Sky routinely hand out to third parties.

Re: The future of television
 

The point is that it's a large demographic for the TV industry to be missing out on. This is a new trend, so you can't just assume that eventually they will change their habits and adopt more traditional forms of entertainment. Maybe in 10 years time some pay-tv exec will be giving the same example for under-45 year olds.

---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------

Exactly. Why take out the middle man just to add him back?

Re: The future of television
 

It’s certainly a mystery I’m yet to have a compelling argument in favour of.

If the true aim is for everyone to become the “next Netflix” retailing to millions of subscribers on their own then joining a wholesale bundle is only going to hit revenue hard in the long run.

While Sky can probably make it work with one or two platforms at substantially more than they offer third parties there isn’t enough potential for price rises to go further.

Re: The future of television
 

It’s also a seriously sub-optimal experience. We have five user profiles in our Netflix account and the programme recommendations are completely different in each of them. Netflix has worked exceptionally hard at that aspect of the functionality and it works very well. Why would they prefer to have that lost in a Sky-branded epg style screen?

Re: The future of television
 

Doesn't Sky already offer Netflix, fully integrated into their system? I think some contributors are arguing that something cannot happen when it already has.

Just to be clear, the incentive to be on as many platforms as possible is to be more visible and to encourage more people to subscribe to the service. Streamers may or may not accept discounts for those services that can attract more customers than they might otherwise have had. Some may only be prepared to offer introductory deals.

---------- Post added at 11:42 ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 ----------

I'm not sure how you make out that acquiring more customers equates to having less revenue. Could you explain what you mean, please?-

---------- Post added at 11:52 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------

'Pennies per month'? Where did that come from?

It is quite possible that there will be no discount for some streamers - others, like Apple +, Britbox and Acorn may be prepared to do so to access many more customers that they otherwise would have.

As an interim stage in a transition away from TV channels, I would envisage a completely revised offering including Netflix, Prime, Discovery +, Disney + and Now (or Peacock if we get that in this country later on), together with the Freeview channels on an EPG. There could be slimmer packages for those wishing to pay less. The pay tv channels would disappear.

This would be as affordable as what we are paying now for the maximum package, there or thereabouts. For those of us with a multitude of streamers already, it would be cheaper.

Re: The future of television
 

You think wrongly. Perhaps re-read my post, and give proper weight to the word “prefer”. ;)

Re: The future of television
 

The streamers don't need a middle man and Sky know that, so prefer to work with them through gritted teeth instead of pretending that they don't exist like Virgin Media are doing.

By adding them to Sky it benefits the streamers as they have another outlet to push their product and it benefits Sky who hope that adding them to their STB will discourage churn. By doing various deals with the streamers, Sky can give extra incentives to continue subscribing to their main product by offering things like cut price Netflix and free Discovery+.

Sky make a little from subs taken out via them and the streamers sell a few more subs due to the extra shop window from Sky.

Sky customers have the convenience of having things on the one box and possibly on the one bill too.

Meanwhile, Virgin Media linear channels continue to drop off the EPG whilst prices go up. To obtain access to the lost material, their customers have to fork out for separately accessed streaming services.

I think it a certainty that some will inevitably find their VM subscription surplus to requirements.