Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

The threads I've started have changed the emphasis on the nature of the debate. For example, the decline of linear channels is not the same as the trend in the US to skinny bundles, and cord cutting has a different emphasis again. The reason I started the 'future of tv' thread which got closed was because I wanted to talk about the changes that may be coming but not necessarily focussing on linear TV. How all this leads you to conclude a lack of objectivity I don't get! What it does indicate is a consistent interpretation of the links I find.

You often talk about the future by referencing current viewing habits and you cite this as a reason things won't change in the future, which is an odd way of looking it it when the trends and developments in technology scream out the opposite.

You have a valid point in drawing attention to streaming problems currently, but again you are ignoring the fact that latency is one of the issues that they are working on now. The BBC has been doing a lot of work on this and a link I posted a while ago indicated that they now knew what to do to deal with this problem.

Incidentally, I am not saying as you suggest that Sky is on its way out, just that it will have to adapt, and that is exactly what it is doing. With Comcast taking the reins, this can only help Sky.

Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

If you go to websites that cite digital marketing companies as reputable sources then you will only find that digital marketing is the future.

The point I have to make has an incredibly low bar: that linear TV will exist in the future for longer than your conclusions based on dubious sources suggest.

The fact linear TV is hugely popular, despite the rise of DVRs, “on demand” and streaming services such is Amazon and Netflix only demonstrates how resilient it is.

If we agree that the BBC, Sky, Virgin, etc. will adapt their offerings then you have to demonstrate that the marginal cost of maintaining a linear presence isn’t cost effective and that if they did maintain both people wouldn’t continue to consume television across the full range. That’s a very high bar.

Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

But if the current trend continues, the linear channels will be much less used with time. Once again, you confuse the now with the future!

Just because some of the links I have provided are from marketing companies does not make them invalid. I would remind you that the BBC is planning for a 'no linear future' after the next licence fee review, so why you are so sceptical eludes me.

Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

You only need look in the US a high percentage of those who left cable/satellite TV still have a smaller bundle which includes linear TV the only difference being it's delivered over their broadband.

Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

The current trends rarely continue to infinity. Early adopters have far more enthusiasm than the population at large. Which is why, despite DVRs and on demand, linear still accounts for a sizeable chunk of broadcasting.

I’d be more interested if the BBC had a firm date for the end of linear broadcasting. However they don’t. Literally nobody does. Which is where you have to demonstrate that it’ll be no longer cost effective to maintain a linear presence when literally hundreds of channels manage it just now.

Even following through simple economics if there’s a reduction in linear channels the value of remaining advertising slots goes up as does the share of the remaining audience. You are trying to push the remaining audience figure down to zero, I’m only making the point that it’s unrealistic.

Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

The BBC is planning for an environment in which linear channels will have ceased broadcasting - that is the period 2028-2038. My prediction is based on 2035, so what's your point? Why must you have an exact date? I'm sorry, but I think you are being argumentative for the sake of it.

I am not saying at all that the linear TV audience will shrink to zero, that's you saying that. What I have said, consistently, is that audiences will eventually reach a level where it ceases to be economic or worthwhile to run them. You seem to be ignoring completely the ITV crisis of a few years ago, when the advertisement funding stream was drying up due to the lack of commercials. That's how fragile the whole system is.

Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

Yet ITV survived the crisis.

The key part you (and your digital marketing sources) persistently fail to demonstrate is ceases to be economic or worthwhile. That level is tiny for someone who already owns and distributes the content via other means.

Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

ITV did survive the crisis, but it was a close call. If that is your argument, that ITV survived the crisis, it is an extremely weak one. It will certainly be a worse crisis if viewership continues to fall.

As far as your fixation with me having to 'demonstrate' everything to you is concerned, maybe you should ask the BBC why it disagrees with your proposition. They are certainly more authoritative than I am! Maybe instead, you can quote me the cost of running a linear TV channel like ITV. No, I thought not.

In the meantime, SVOD viewing continues to rise and rise.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2019...ear-in-the-uk/

That's BARB, by the way, not a marketing company. :rolleyes:

Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

I suspect most people are watching Netflix etc instead of DVDs, Sky cinema and pay as you view films, not instead of normal TV channels

Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

You have to “demonstrate” because you are the one making the claim throughout this thread and this forum that linear TV will cease. Whether I can quote the cost of running ITV is an irrelevance: ITV has content costs that it has whether or not it is viewed on their website, on catch up or on the linear channel. The additional cost of running the linear channel is demonstrably small: check any platform you like and there are hundreds of channels carrying out all of the associated tasks and broadcasting to tiny audiences.

To any major content provider like Sky, who heavily rely on other funding sources, the cost of maintaining their linear channels is tiny on top of all of the other content costs. The same will be true of ITV, Channel 4 or any other “free to air” broadcaster however they adapt to the future.

It’s helpful that you are using the BARB as a source, as it is credible, and reasonable growth for streaming is something I’ve never claimed will not happen. “Unidentified viewing” growing 16% to 19% is more realistic than the “160% growth (8% to 20%)” for Super Bowl streaming in your previous link.

How that 19% grows to 100% is the bit I have difficulty with.

The vast, vast majority of people could watch television without adverts now using their DVR but the evidence does not suggest most of those exclusively time shift their viewing to avoid advertising despite the technology at their fingertips. How do you move someone who “isn’t that bothered” into your streaming future? Or the type of person who bought a widescreen TV and used it to stretch a 4:3 picture? Sky (and Virgin) will continue to hoover up these subscribers through a combination of convenience and key content while offering streaming options alongside their current platforms.

Sky maintain all of their movie channels despite all of the library being on demand. They increased the number of Sports channels to give users the convenience of not having to use the red button so often.

Beyond all this it leaves one thing advertisers will be able to guarantee as streaming services grow. The minority of people left who still watch the majority of their content the “old” way will be very likely to be actually watching the breaks.

Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

I think that what you are missing is the fact that we don't need to reduce the amount of viewing on linear channels to 0% before they are abandoned. A big shift in linear TV viewing has already happened and the number of hours people are spending watching on demand programming and streaming is continuing to increase. We are reaching a point at which conventionally broadcast channels will start closing down in significant numbers.

By the way, yet another report on this which notes that we are closer than ever to the 'inflection point'. Well within the period I have set out in my prediction.

https://advanced-television.com/2019...tipping-point/

Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

Think you will find a big split between young (watching streaming on their phones and tablets) and old (mainly way pitching linear to channels) generations.

As you have stated 'we are reaching a point at whivpch conventionally broadcast channels will start closing down in significant numbers' I presume the end of the world is nigh.

You cannot hide behind your interpretation of future.

Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

I am not hiding behind anything. I have made it clear from the start that the demise of the linear channels will be complete before 2035. By then, the 50 year-olds of today will be newly retired. How many of them would be unable to handle on demand systems? By then, it will be much easier for them to be able to use the new streaming services anyway. There is no reason why EPGs in the future cannot give access to streaming services in the way they do to channels now. All the oldies without these skills will then have to do is choose the programme they want to watch. How is that difficult?

Incidentally, I do not consider that to be an 'end of the world event' as you put it, just the natural progression of things due to new technology and innovative developments.

Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

I’m fairly confident that, due to confirmation bias, you will be able to dig up a similar article from a digital marketing company every other month between now and 2035.

I’m not missing any facts because you aren’t presenting any!

If you read the key details of the article this ‘inflection point’ relates to the cost effectiveness of advertising on television and return on investment. Like any market it will react accordingly and the cost of advertising on television will fall. Bad news for anyone solely reliant upon TV advertising (which I’ve never contested).

There’s nothing in there about how streaming eliminates linear TV altogether by 2035, or any other date.

Some programming suits linear television because it encourages participation with social media. Despite DVRs being near universal people still work to the TV schedule. There’s no explanation about how it moves across/incentivises people without broadband, or who at face value appear to just sit down pick something on now from their EPG.

There’s no indication at all that linear channels are ready to close in significant numbers as you put it.

As an aside: Sky Movies Comedy HD is showing Groundhog Day all day today. Every one hour and forty five minutes from 6am until 6.30am tomorrow. Some of these showings will get virtually (or perhaps actually) zero viewers. An efficient use of bandwidth? No, but bandwidth is cheap. If you own the content a gimmick like this costs next to nothing. The same principle applies to linear TV with a mixed funding model.

Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future
 

https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/ne...wsletterWeekly

Kids between 5 to 15 prefer streaming ahead of linear TV. This is certainly reflective of how my 2 boys watch their cartoons and other content in the house. They are the next generation of content subscribers and they've made their choice early.