Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
|
Thank you, Hugh.
Clearly, conventional channels are safe and doing well in the short term. However, VOD viewing will continue to grow, and this could become very rapid growth within the next decade, with conventional TV channels under strain from decreasing advertising revenues by about five years' time if they do not find alternative revenue streams.
The main commercial channels have already developed their i-players with unskippable ad breaks, and no doubt Sky, Virgin Media and others will ultimately make arrangements to pay for those same players with commercials taken out. Such arrangements will ensure the extended survival of the main channels, but the smaller channels will certainly start feeling the pinch in the foreseeable future unless similar arrangements can be made for them. I would not exclude this possibility, and if it could be made to work, this would address Harry's concerns about access. So those with pay TV would have the commercial free players and those who cannot or will not pay will be able to take the free option with ads.
However, in the longer term, I would expect to see the i-players superceded by Netflix style sites which would offer also extended facilities to access content from previous years.
---------- Post added at 10:32 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry_hitch
Haha you have only recently changed you view on what is classed as linear tv, so please stop spouting other wise. Hence, my reasoning behind the Sky, VM, BT statement.
Yup, you have given the American info. I said it was extremely expensive. Take the American info as a base rate, do you see it being more or less expensive, or will it be a similar price. If it is a similar price or higher, why would people choose to pay more for the same content, when they could just stick with how it is now? Also, if you think it will be less, please explain how. Again, it does not need to be precise, just basic figures are fine by me. Your refusal to give even the most basic of figures, is because you know it will be much more expensive than it is now, and as such, people will not change their habits the way you think.
I notice you now say you expect tradition tv channels will be pretty well gone in 20 years. You used to say, quite vehemently, they would be well and truly dead by then, but you never change your mind do you?
Anyway, gotta head back to work soon, but seeings as we a year in to this discussion, can you provide some info on the latest figures as to how people are consuming their viewing? It has not been discussed much recently and I am genuinely interested as to the most recent trend.
|
Look at my original post, which makes very clear that I was comparing 'linear channels' with 'streaming services'. It was your mistake to read more into that than was intended.
In terms of the cost of streaming services, I've already answered the question of what I think will happen with Netflix prices. With the monthly cost increasing to £7.50 per month, this still works out cheaper than the licence fee. The competition between the streaming services should ensure that prices remain reasonable and proportionate to the content available.
I still think that conventional channels will be dead in 20 years. However, there are known unknowns
in terms of decisions yet to be made. For example, if the licence fee is retained, the BBC may wish to use the current system to air its range of channels, if they can afford it. However, if the Conservatives are still in power in 10 years, they may baulk at allowing the BBC to incur these additional costs when there are other cheaper, or more popular, methods of showing programmes available.
Hugh has answered your question on viewing preferences.