VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by steveh

First time I heard the term 'cord-shaving'.

Broadcasting is a hairy business.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by steveh

This is a really excellent piece on the changes happening as US TV transitions away from linear TV:
http://redef.com/original/there-isnt...tor=MediaREDEF

I found the article very contradictory. I will read again, then comment.

Thanks for the link.

[steveh]

There's a second part now too: https://redef.com/original/56d0d7db63c0b49f224c5e9f

Conclusion:

If you were in it, the old television model was a godsend. Anyone with channel space could establish a feed and those that failed (or arrived too late) had the luxury of falling back on the feed-like Pay TV experience. What’s more, Pay TV dynamics meant that all customers were shared, just as easily found as they were lost, and participation ensured both years of locked-in revenue. Online will work very differently. Mass entertainment will shift to winner takes most, with the largest services monopolizing profits and social networks controlling the destiny of much of the remainder. There will be dozens of successful niche video distributors, but only those able to establish passionate, multi-media audience communities will realize significant value.

If the major media conglomerates are unable to succeed with the aforementioned over-the-top offerings, they will, according to them, thrive through competition between competing content buyers. Unfortunately, this view overestimates the likely number of sustainable long-term distributors and underestimates concentration of power. As a result, most will find their content modularized, relegated to simple inputs for those who do own a feed – which will make cost cutting, long Hollywood’s neglected half of the profit equation, crucial. As the American newspaper industry faced the decline of its own “feed” – an editorial bundle that carried attention from national news through to sports and crosswords – revenues dropped by more than 50% and expenses became the dominant profit lever. Thanks to still-significant production barriers and a greater share of consumer time, the video business will fare much better than print, but those banking on a lucrative sequel to Pay TV will find only disappointment.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by steveh

Viacom dismiss cord cutting and think people still prefer bundling:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/viacom...terview-2016-2

First time I heard the term 'cord-shaving'.

It should be possible to bundle streaming services in the same way as TV channels are bundled.

[Horizon]

The second article is split into three main sections:

The first section deals with the traditional media companies competing against Netflix and how they will need to build "scale" to do it. That word was used frequently.

The second section deals with social networks and how they'll become increasingly important. You won't just go to Facebook to share your favourite photos with friends, but watch your favourite shows on their too according to the article.

And the third main section dealt with what the article called identity feeds aka niche players. Like Netflix, but smaller players where you go to watch your favourite niche shows and interact with others depending on your interests, ie sci-fi, DIY, etc.

I think the article over-eggs the importance of social networks like Facebook and what is popular one day, ie MySpace, is forgotten the next. So, I'll concentrate on the other two sections.

The gist of the first section was that while the number of channels has grown, generally most people stick to just a handful. The article believes this is how it will be in the future tv landscape too and a streaming at that. There may be two or three streaming services that dominate and that's it.

The article went on to say that the media companies have already experimented with apps but are now reducing them to scale up against netflix. So, rather than there being several different Discovery channel aps, there is now just one. Rather than several different Fox apps, there is now just one. The article believes, and I agree, that the media companies need to offer a broad selection of shows if they launching their own streaming servies just like Netflix is now doing.

The article was saying that the big media companies/networks have to decide whether they keep doing business with the likes of netflix or create their own streaming services. But the article believes that mass consolidation is on the way in the media world and it be increasingly unlikely that smaller players can survive, although they believe that the US networks stand a good chance of surviving into the future based on their current programming, but only if they adapt to the streaming world.

There is far too much in the article to comment on, but I do think they are making too many assumptions, ie about Netflix. If someone comes up with better tech than Netflix, a better user interface, they'll be no Netflix. And of course if the big media companies withhold content from Netflix, that will finish them off too. That wasn't really covered in the article as they think Netflix, plus a few other will reign supreme. Perhaps, or perhaps not.

On the other section about niche players, I've already talked about this in the thread, I called them portals, so I'll say no more about that. Main post here and the rest of my comments on portals are on page 2 of this thread after this post:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35753988-post21.html

In conclusion, I agree with what some of that second article says, particularly about media consolidation, but its not clear who will be the "winners" yet. The article thinks, "winner takes all," but I would not like to be in a world of just a few tv choices or worse, one.

Now I'm off to watch something on Netflix.... as, as always, evening tv on our main channels is dominated by reality crap.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by Horizon

I found the article very contradictory. I will read again, then comment.

Thanks for the link.

Ok, after reading it again, it wasn't contradictory at all, but very clear and a MUST read for all on this thread.

To summarise the article it says that while the number of tv channels has increased, so has the amount of original series'. But crucially, so have overall profits. Things aren't getting worse in the tv world, but much better, but things are changing.

Americans are watching more tv than ever, with growth particularly on mobile devices and the American population has grown too. So everything is good then according to the article, no....

While overall profits are rising, all the various cable channels and broadcast networks are fighting over an ever decreasing audience per show. You can only watch one thing at a time.

And the media companies make their own channels fight each other for audience share, rather than work together. NBCUniversal's channels like NBC, Sci-Fi, USA are cannibalizing each other by the infighting. But that didn't matter too much until recently because all the channels were making ever increasing amounts of dosh. Then came along Netflix et all and the ever increasing profits from the traditional bundle of cable channels is now eroding fast.

The American tv business model, as was, was based on ad revenues of numbers of viewers per show. The streaming model is more complex and not necessarily based on the number of viewers per show but whether those viewers are more likely to come back to the streaming service and watch something else and how fast they watch the show, ie binge watch a whole series in a day.

The conclusion of the article is that while tv is making money overall, the number of new shows getting cancelled is increasingly sharply threatening the current business model of network and cable tv. But the article reckons that things will sort themselves out. Cable channels will merge or collapse and less new series' will be made. And, as tv transitions to a streaming model and the audience increases not just to an American one, but a global one, tv as a whole will continue to grow.

Interesting stuff.

[RichardCoulter]

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201603104...#axzz42YAwKc2g

Traditional ways of watching TV still dominates according to this article.

[denphone]

Now perhaps our revered poster should take his rose tinted glasses off for once.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

Now perhaps our revered poster should take his rose tinted glasses off for once.

Den, if you read beyond the headline, you will see that this refers to viewing on a TV set compared with viewing on a smartphone or tablet.

Viewing video is, in fact, increasing, and this is exactly my point throughout this thread. When this increase gets to the point where commercial broadcast TV becomes unviable....you know the rest!

In my view, this will not happen for a few years yet, and until that time, the number of broadcast linear channels will remain more or less the same.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201603104...#axzz42YAwKc2g

Traditional ways of watching TV still dominates according to this article.

Of course it does.

Viewing via portable devices is being driven by kids because they don't own their own homes and more and more of their parents are realising there's no need to put a TV in their bedroom because the computer monitor plus Youtube or iPlayer does the job.

The great mistake people often mistake when reading demographic statistics is to assume the behaviour exhibited by a particular age group can be projected forwards in time. In actual fact, people's behaviour changes according to their age and other factors - in this case, once the kids are grown up, got their own house and take control of the TV in the living room.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Of course it does.

Viewing via portable devices is being driven by kids because they don't own their own homes and more and more of their parents are realising there's no need to put a TV in their bedroom because the computer monitor plus Youtube or iPlayer does the job.

The great mistake people often mistake when reading demographic statistics is to assume the behaviour exhibited by a particular age group can be projected forwards in time. In actual fact, people's behaviour changes according to their age and other factors - in this case, once the kids are grown up, got their own house and take control of the TV in the living room.

I agree with most of that, Chris. However, we need to consider why, having been used to getting access to material on demand, newly 'settled down' adults would then be prepared to be bound by the inflexible method of scheduled TV.

The trend towards video is already happening, as the stats show. This will continue to grow, and much more rapidly after the next few years.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

OB, I have never said there is not much content on Netflix or Amazon. The content on Amazon is not tempting to me. Just because you have huge amounts of TV lined up to watch, does not mean others will. I like plenty of the old repeated shows on Netflix, does not mean I would want to watch them all over again, simply because I could only afford one subscription, along with the free channels a year. Incidentally, which other free services due you see popping up?
Fair point on the exclusives.
Will you make your mind up on the streaming services. Are people going to flit between individual monthly subs, (which was your original thought) be contracted to expensive individual annual subscriptions for independent streaming services, thus limiting what people can watch (which is what you then changed your mind to) Or are Sky and VM just going to continue their business model as they currently do and the majority streaming services/channels will still all be available at a fair(ish) price so the majority of people who want such services can enjoy them still? Also, if that would work, why is it not happening in the States yet?

Point 2 - why will HBO be ppv over here? Why will it launch a streaming service when it makes more money from the deal with Sky, and probably amazon now too?

Point 3 - For me, there is very good stuff on Sky, if you above channel number 200, and very good stuff on Netflix. Personally, I would suggest Sky has better over all content, but that's my taste. I accept you think Netflix has more.

Points 4/6 I did the calculations for a global audience that doubled in size OB. I would like you to speculate on the costs though please OB, of both TV and Films. You say it is feasible, so lets see your maths please. With regards a lesser service, unless Netflix plan to rip off the lower tier audience and charge them more than the lesser service is worth, how are they going to make your proposed short fall up?

Point 7 - Of course shows will be lost to people. You have already talked about people missing exclusive shows, and said it will continue to happen. If this ficticiuos market will only have a certain amount of room for a number of subscription services, how are shows not going to be lost? How on earth are the remaining services going to be able to afford the rights to these shows and continue to operate if there revenues start to drop? Yes, they may gain a few more customers from the services that drop away, but they will soon reach the maximum income they can get, and they will than have rising costs to improve the service.

The thread is interesting and I always enjoy a good debate on here. I just tire of your reluctance to acknowledge any issues with your proposals. I have dropped out of the thread before for these reasons, and I may have to again soon, to let someone else try and discuss this with you. I will try not to though.

I am really surprised that you cannot find much on Amazon or Netflix that interests you, Harry, because there is so much on there. Sky's non premium channels don't even come close to what either of the main streaming services have to offer. Incidentally, Netflix is planning 55 more original new series this year, so it just gets better and better!

You have asked me to 'make up my mind on streaming services' and whether people will flit from one streaming service to another, etc. I'm not sure how you expect me to know the answer to that as I can't predict precisely what services will be available in the future, let alone which services they will prefer. However, at a guess, I would imagine that there will be a range of behaviours by viewers. Some will want to maximise their viewing experience by flitting about, some will tend to be loyal to one or two providers and of course there will always be those who want it all (like me, tee hee!).

Incidentally, I don't know why you are saying that I've changed my mind. The only reason I mentioned annual subscriptions is that you asked me a specific question, and I answered it. I have no idea if annual subscriptions will ever become the norm, but existing channel providers do seem to prefer to lock you in. At the moment of course, there are a range of practices, ranging from annual subscriptions (Amazon) to a much more flexible monthly pass approach (such as Now TV).

I would like to see Sky and cable companies offering packages of discounted subscription services (much the same as we have bundles of channels now). Whether that will happen, who knows? There's not much evidence of that yet, but it may come. Alternatively, we may have to subscribe separately as we currently have to do with Netflix.

I do believe that HBO will eventually launch over here. I think they stand to make more money by making their shows available to a wider audience. In all likelihood, this will be on a pay per view basis (unfortunately).

I have no figures worked out, Harry, but you don't need to be a maths expert to work out that you will get a bigger discount for the content if you are a global rather than a national player. The more you buy, the less you pay per unit. That's how these wholesale deals work.

As for the 'ripping off audiences' comment, I really don't get that. If a less wide ranging selection of programming can be provided at a cheaper price for those who can't afford, or don't want to pay for everything, how is that a rip off? Sky and VM have different bundles of channels now, from M to XL. Is that a rip off?

As for shows being lost, that will only happen during the exclusivity period, by and large. Eventually, everything tends to have more general availability after a while - this maximises income generation.

Harry, other posters have been putting up links to articles that make it pretty clear that these changes are coming. I don't understand why you cannot see this, but I have concluded that you won't believe it until it happens for real. So I guess I will have a bit of a wait before I hear you say: "Geez! You was right"!

I've already worked out that I'll probably be dead by then!

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:45 ----------

http://advanced-television.com/2016/...-svod-service/

The BBC has held talks with rivals including ITV about launching a Netflix-style video SVoD streaming service.

The talks, which are also said to have involved NBC Universal, focus on the potential to develop a subscription TV service. The service would major on providing archive TV content from the broadcasters rather than the first-run of shows, although there would be a certain amount of original commissions.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Of course it does.

Viewing via portable devices is being driven by kids because they don't own their own homes and more and more of their parents are realising there's no need to put a TV in their bedroom because the computer monitor plus Youtube or iPlayer does the job.

The great mistake people often mistake when reading demographic statistics is to assume the behaviour exhibited by a particular age group can be projected forwards in time. In actual fact, people's behaviour changes according to their age and other factors - in this case, once the kids are grown up, got their own house and take control of the TV in the living room.

But kids grow up, Chris, and what do you think they will do when they settle down to their TVs and find that they are hide bound by schedules and flooded with adverts?

I rest my case!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But kids grow up, Chris, and what do you think they will do when they settle down to their TVs and find that they are hide bound by schedules and flooded with adverts?

I rest my case!

Good.

Case dismissed.

[Horizon]

Talking of younguns, I had a look at the kids section of Netflix today, never looked at it before. It's immense, hundereds of hours of stuff. Mostly cartoons, but some dramas too.

I think the first casualties in the pay tv world will be in the kids tv channels. Why would kids bother watching the cartoon network showing cartoons they might not like when they can select exactly what they want on Netflix?