View Single Post
Old 03-12-2019, 08:20   #1193
jfman
Architect of Ideas
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,316
jfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronze
jfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronzejfman is cast in bronze
Re: Linear is old tech - on demand is the future

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post
That was before we even had Netflix!

As for your 10%, you won't get much in the way of quality viewing on that small audience! Just a few short years ago ITV nearly went under because there was insufficient advertising to support the cost of programming.

It should be clear to you, particularly with your outstanding economics expertise that is, we understand, second to none, that 10% of the audience is not going to generate the same amount of revenue from advertising. Something has to give, and why, when the system changes to IPTV, would the broadcasters would want to duplicate a system which provides an unsatisfactory plethora of channels when the content can be packaged into all-embracing streaming services?
There's absolutely no need for sarcasm in your posts Old Boy, although it's unsurprising as you don't have a case so you persist with personalising it against me.

You are also arguing against points I didn't actually make - which is the norm.

At no point did I make reference to the quality, or otherwise, of linear television. Neither did I claim there would be the same amount of ad revenue floating around - pro rata - as there is today. The fact ITV nearly "went under" as you put it was programming costs which would exist anyway for ITV streaming. You are the one seeing the world in a dull black and white options when the rest of us are watching in colour.

Why would the broadcasters want to duplicate? Same reason they do today I presume with repeats, plus 1 content, on demand and online live streams. It costs virtually nothing compared to all the other operating costs of TV channel/streaming service/pay tv platform.

There's also the risk that if one company doesn't another will - and that company gets "free" advertising every time someone switches their television on and it goes to channel 1/101, in every bedroom, in every hotel room - hell even in every caravan in the country. I think Sky, or anyone else frankly, would jump at that opportunity in addition to the pay platform, streaming, Now TV and the multitude of other ways their content is available.
jfman is online now