Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I really don’t understand your attitude to the takeover of the streamers. Your characterisation of what I think is far from the truth. Viewers are being encouraged to move to the streamers rather than relying on the ‘linear’ channels, as you are now happy to call them. (Took a while, but we got there in the end).
|
I’m unclear how I’ve used the term “linear” in the last post is any different from how I have before, but if you could outline the difference that may be helpful for everyone else trying to understand what you mean by your inconsistent use of the term.
I’ve nothing against streaming television as I’ve explained before - I currently subscribe to four (five if you count Prime, although it’s not my reason for subscribing) targeted at 4 different countries.
My main contention is your flawed observations on the market as a whole which is very much distinct from the personal preferences of me, Chris, Hugh, Andrew or anyone else you have in mind when you vent your spleen in the direction of forum members.
Quote:
|
The streamers are doing rather well, all things considered and are now looking for more ways to attract subscribers. The free or low-cost advertising options offered will go along way to increasing the yield from subscribers, although yes, they will be non—skippable commercials. This will ensure that advertisers know that by advertising on the streamers, the audience will have to watch them (unless viewers use the time to go to the loo or make a cuppa!). Quite an advantage over ‘linear’ (I’m still getting used to using that word - much less convoluted than referring to ‘conventional broadcast TV channels’!).
|
Interesting that you view restrictions to mandate viewing adverts as a “benefit” in our previously low cost, no advert streaming future.
If that article represents a positive vision of the streaming future - gaming and gambling - I’m more reassured than ever that a significant enough proportion of the population will continue to reject it.