Quote:
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 ----------
Quote:
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 ----------
Quote:
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 ----------
Quote:
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 ----------
Quote:
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.