Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Well, you do make me laugh, Harry! You pull every word I say apart in the most pedantic fashion and expect me to justify absolutely everything I say, and yet you make these sweeping statements such as the 'fact' that Netflix will have to take commercials, completely ignoring the fact that they've said they will not. It is difficult to have a sensible conversation when one side feels they can say whatever they like and ignore the contrary evidence and expects the other party to detail their views to the umpteenth amount of detail.
I agree, let's leave the Netflix issue aside, people can make their own judgement about whether to believe you or believe the company's stated position.
Concentrating on your last 3 paragraphs as you suggest, you seem to think I've 'changed ' my original point. I don't know what you mean by that because I have been consistent in my views on this throughout, although of course arguments and discussions can develop any theme.
I note that you seem to be saying that if linear TV broadcasters find their audience share declining, they will simply charge more for selling their original content to the streaming services. Well, that's tough luck for the likes of Gold, Dave, Syfy, W, Alibi and countless others who produce precious little if any of their own material. Even ITV has channels, such as ITV 2,3, and 4 that survive on repeats and imported material. Clearly, your (unreported) figures do not add up. Many, many linear channels would have to close if that was the only way to make up the increasing shortfall in revenue that I suggest will start to be noticeable in the medium term. If that's the best solution you have, I rest my case.
You may or may not be right about costs of streaming services in the future, but even if you are right and people will get less for their buck, this will not stop it from happening for the reasons I have stated many times. The only way linear channels can possibly survive in the long term is if they come up with something completely new which stops them haemorraging viewers. I cannot think what this would be, and therefore my conclusion is that they will die out eventually, with the smaller ones dying out first.
Once again, you ask me how the cost of streaming services will be structured, how they will be packaged, etc. How am I supposed to answer that? It's up to the satellite and cable providers to work that out and negotiate the best deals. Don't forget that wholesale deals guarantee income, which is a valuable mechanism that suits both parties, enabling the satellite/cable company to make a profit. Why do you see streaming services as so different from channels? The same principles apply, it's just that there will be rather less of them.
I have already sent you a link on the streaming services available in the US and what the various options would cost, but you chose to ignore this and complain that the article was about cord cutting! Simply look at those charges and use the dollars to pounds calculator and that will give you a pretty good idea. However, don't forget that there will be many additional options available including pay per view sites and those forcing ads down your throat at no extra cost.
|
Ha, glad I can make you laugh OB
. I do pull a lot of your stuff apart, but that is because, in my eyes, it can be pulled apart. You have been very open with all of your thoughts, thankfully, as they encourage debate (this thread is good to pass the time when the missus is not about) but ultimately, you have never been able to back up your statements and thoughts when questioned.
Not sure I make sweeping statements, yes I think all streaming services will take ad money eventually, I have never claimed it as fact. Not sure how that is a sweeping statement though, even if it is one, it is only a single statement. I have never denied that I can back up my statement on ad's and Netflix, even when you have asked. In my eyes, it is the only way it can stay financially viable in 20 years time. History also tells us that pay TV stations need ads, so I don't see why streaming services won't need them in the future. Ultimately, I don't care if people believe me or not, it's what I think.
I have never asked for the umpteenth detail. You have replied with detail to many of my responses to your posts, but you have not been able to explain to me rudimentary costs of worldwide exclusives, how the streaming services will work and rudimentary figures for how much they will cost. I have given many rudimentary costs in the past, but for some reason you choose not to give me rudimentary costs back, I can only think it is because you know the figures won't stack up. You have told me three different ways on how you think streaming services could work, and have changed your thoughts when I have challenged you. Unfortunately I still disagree that people will be able to flit in and out of a bundled streaming service form Sky VM, etc, it is not financially viable. If it is a viable option, why don't sky, vm operate like that now?
So, you have given me lots of detail, but have failed to convince me on any costs and how it will work. If I am after the "umpteenth detail", it is because you have made statements that do not stand up to basic scrutiny.
With regards your link (where have I complained it is about cord cutting? cord cutting came up a few posts ago and you say this thread is not about cord cutting. I still say it is, or at least was, until you changed your mind a couple of weeks ago and said Sky bundling services is the best option), I responded some time ago to another link and the totals of about 5 or 6 of the best streaming services would cost about £50.
The cost's on your link are scarier. I would ask how much you think Sky would charge to sell those services as a bundle, but I know you won't give an answer.
Where have I said I streaming services are different to channels? They offer a great option for people, as do wholesale deals. I am happy streaming services are available, but they will not kill off linear tv as you think.
I doubt the UKTV channels will suffer too much, they are part owned by the BBC and I can't see the BBC or Scripps letting their channels die too quickly, when they could pass any theoretical extra costs to Netflix for the rights old series. A few of their channels air on freeview too, and in the case of UKTV channels only, they could always release more channels on freeview to gain extra ad revenue, if the Sky ad revenue drops. Freeview, will of course, continue to operate for many years to come. I have no doubt some channels on sky will struggle, but there is no way linear tv will die in 20 years. That is the I solution I will give, and unlike you, I will stick to it. Feel free to pull it apart even more if you wish, but it is not going to matter as linear tv will not be dead in 20 years.
