13-06-2021, 12:55
|
#286
|
Architect of Ideas
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,496
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Doesn't Sky already offer Netflix, fully integrated into their system? I think some contributors are arguing that something cannot happen when it already has.
Just to be clear, the incentive to be on as many platforms as possible is to be more visible and to encourage more people to subscribe to the service. Streamers may or may not accept discounts for those services that can attract more customers than they might otherwise have had. Some may only be prepared to offer introductory deals.
I'm not sure how you make out that acquiring more customers equates to having less revenue. Could you explain what you mean, please?-
|
Gladly.
In your “content aggregator” hypothesis you propose that streamers should be made available on platforms such as Sky/Virgin.
Such wholesale deals need to be finely balanced - a customer who leaves your service as a direct subscriber to become an indirect subscriber via a wholesale arrangement means less revenue for you.
E.g. a BT Sport subscriber who joins Virgin to get BT Sports reflects a substantial revenue drop compared to a direct BT subscriber. This needs to be finely balanced.
Quote:
'Pennies per month'? Where did that come from?
|
Sky’s own accounts. And Virgin’s.
Both have in the past included what their expenses are to third party content providers. That amount, averaged over the subscriber base and the number of third parties, leads to the obvious conclusion that they are only paying pennies per month.
Indeed, if one casts our minds back to the Sky Basics dispute this was over Sky wanting something in the region of 90 pence per subscriber per month for the most popular channels on pay television.
If you think there’s a magical pot of money out there where Sky/Virgin are in a position to pay every fledgeling streaming service pounds per month then you are very well mistaken. If that money comes from anywhere it will be the end user.
Quote:
It is quite possible that there will be no discount for some streamers - others, like Apple +, Britbox and Acorn may be prepared to do so to access many more customers that they otherwise would have.
|
I’d contest that it’s not only possible but extremely likely. This content isn’t new or magical, it’s simply television distributed across another means. There’s no incentive for Sky/Virgin to encourage further dilution of their own content by propping up all of these streamers.
Quote:
As an interim stage in a transition away from TV channels, I would envisage a completely revised offering including Netflix, Prime, Discovery +, Disney + and Now (or Peacock if we get that in this country later on), together with the Freeview channels on an EPG. There could be slimmer packages for those wishing to pay less. The pay tv channels would disappear.
This would be as affordable as what we are paying now for the maximum package, there or thereabouts. For those of us with a multitude of streamers already, it would be cheaper.
|
Would it be affordable or cheaper than traditional pay-tv services? Who is getting squeezed because all of their direct to customer offerings are significantly more expensive than people are paying for their TV package to Sky or Virgin.
Last edited by jfman; 13-06-2021 at 12:59.
|
|
|
13-06-2021, 13:17
|
#287
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,330
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Would it be affordable or cheaper than traditional pay-tv services? Who is getting squeezed because all of their direct to customer offerings are significantly more expensive than people are paying for their TV package to Sky or Virgin.
|
I think the future savings may come by getting rid of satellite/box installations and more expensive boxes that record. But that still won't account for the difference between £1 per subscriber that Sky probably gets from VM for its entertainment channels and the £10 (albeit often less) it gets for its entertainment channels when sold directly under its Now brand.
|
|
|
13-06-2021, 14:05
|
#288
|
cf.geek
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 754
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
...The pay tv channels would disappear.
|
Why the obsession with pay channels disappearing?
It's as if you are in a race and see only that as the finish line. But to get there everyone has to be running towards the same finish line. Some people may be running alongside you but you will also find people running in the opposite direction, maybe they tried streaming services and weren't happy with the experience. Others will be on the sidelines, enjoying a mixed diet of streamed and scheduled content. Yet more will be anchored to the spot, as determined to stay with scheduled pay-TV as you are to see it end.
|
|
|
13-06-2021, 14:50
|
#289
|
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 67
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 42,250
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Doesn't Sky already offer Netflix, fully integrated into their system? I think some contributors are arguing that something cannot happen when it already has.
Just to be clear, the incentive to be on as many platforms as possible is to be more visible and to encourage more people to subscribe to the service. Streamers may or may not accept discounts for those services that can attract more customers than they might otherwise have had. Some may only be prepared to offer introductory deals.
---------- Post added at 11:42 ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 ----------
I'm not sure how you make out that acquiring more customers equates to having less revenue. Could you explain what you mean, please?-
---------- Post added at 11:52 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------
'Pennies per month'? Where did that come from?
It is quite possible that there will be no discount for some streamers - others, like Apple +, Britbox and Acorn may be prepared to do so to access many more customers that they otherwise would have.
As an interim stage in a transition away from TV channels, I would envisage a completely revised offering including Netflix, Prime, Discovery +, Disney + and Now (or Peacock if we get that in this country later on), together with the Freeview channels on an EPG. There could be slimmer packages for those wishing to pay less. The pay tv channels would disappear.
This would be as affordable as what we are paying now for the maximum package, there or thereabouts. For those of us with a multitude of streamers already, it would be cheaper.
|
1000 customers subscribe direct from Netflix at £11.99 per customer, Netflix get £11,990.00 per month; 1500 customers subscribe, through Sky, to Netflix at £9.99 per month, of which Netflix get £6.99, Netflix get £10,498.50 per month.
(subscription amounts for illustrative purposes only).
__________________
There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
|
|
|
13-06-2021, 15:59
|
#290
|
Rise above the players
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,618
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon
Why the obsession with pay channels disappearing?
It's as if you are in a race and see only that as the finish line. But to get there everyone has to be running towards the same finish line. Some people may be running alongside you but you will also find people running in the opposite direction, maybe they tried streaming services and weren't happy with the experience. Others will be on the sidelines, enjoying a mixed diet of streamed and scheduled content. Yet more will be anchored to the spot, as determined to stay with scheduled pay-TV as you are to see it end.
|
I’m not ‘obsessed’ with it, but if we have access to all the main streamers through our boxes, why would we pay for the same content on pay tv channels?
If we had both, it would be far too expensive for most, and pointless, what is more.
__________________
Forumbox.co.uk
|
|
|
13-06-2021, 17:23
|
#291
|
Architect of Ideas
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,496
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I’m not ‘obsessed’ with it, but if we have access to all the main streamers through our boxes, why would we pay for the same content on pay tv channels?
If we had both, it would be far too expensive for most, and pointless, what is more.
|
A statement you’ve been invited to evidence on numerous occasions yet to date never taken the opportunity to do so. Your clear obsession with this subject won’t make this happen all by itself.
Right now linear ensures quality of service to end users, in high and ultra high definition. Something not achievable by streaming in a uniform way as broadcast television does.
|
|
|
13-06-2021, 18:53
|
#292
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,313
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
I think the future savings may come by getting rid of satellite/box installations and more expensive boxes that record. But that still won't account for the difference between £1 per subscriber that Sky probably gets from VM for its entertainment channels and the £10 (albeit often less) it gets for its entertainment channels when sold directly under its Now brand.
|
Good points , I can see the satellite platform hemorrhaging customers especially with every additional bit of content it loses going forward. I have lots and lots of friends and colleagues who have already cancelled their Sky subscriptions with many moving to Freeview/Freesat complemented by Now for Sport and streaming apps.
I can see Sky going over to IPTV with a box sent out in the post and installed by the customer , Now pretty much does this already but at some point I see the two meeting in the middle.
The extra money Sky saves on third party content will be invested into its own content with content from the NBCUniversal stable also.
Linear will still be very much part of its offering specifically for Sport and News.
|
|
|
13-06-2021, 19:17
|
#293
|
cf.geek
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 754
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I’m not ‘obsessed’ with it, but if we have access to all the main streamers through our boxes, why would we pay for the same content on pay tv channels?
If we had both, it would be far too expensive for most, and pointless, what is more.
|
So don't buy them twice. You wouldn't buy your eggs from Asda and then go to Tesco to buy them again. Make a choice. Eventually you will choose the streamers but other viewers will choose scheduled content.
Happy days for everyone.
|
|
|
13-06-2021, 19:47
|
#294
|
Architect of Ideas
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,496
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon
So don't buy them twice. You wouldn't buy your eggs from Asda and then go to Tesco to buy them again. Make a choice. Eventually you will choose the streamers but other viewers will choose scheduled content.
Happy days for everyone.
|
Or scheduled content with an on demand catalogue as now. Satisfying everyone who, unlike Old Boy, are agnostic about the whole thing.
His desperation for the end of television, whether he watches it or not, is completely irrational.
|
|
|
13-06-2021, 20:40
|
#295
|
Rise above the players
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,618
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
A statement you’ve been invited to evidence on numerous occasions yet to date never taken the opportunity to do so. Your clear obsession with this subject won’t make this happen all by itself.
Right now linear ensures quality of service to end users, in high and ultra high definition. Something not achievable by streaming in a uniform way as broadcast television does.
|
What point are you making here? Is it not self evident that if we are paying for pay-tv channels as well as streaming services, it will be more expensive than if we just had a bouquet of streamers providing the same content?
Yes, it is true that TV channels provide a service that some are perfectly happy with, but people are not going to pay twice for the same content, are they? Even if they are obsessed with channel numbers and advertisement breaks.
I’m not sure either what you are getting at in inferring that ‘quality of service to end users, in high and ultra high definition’ is even applicable to scheduled TV. There is far more content in UHD on the streamers, and nothing in SD.
So your assertion that this is not achievable by streaming is palpable nonsense.
Perhaps you should clarify yourself.
---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:34 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon
So don't buy them twice. You wouldn't buy your eggs from Asda and then go to Tesco to buy them again. Make a choice. Eventually you will choose the streamers but other viewers will choose scheduled content.
Happy days for everyone.
|
No, quite clearly you wouldn’t, and that is my point. If your satellite or cable subscription gave you a package of streamers with all that content that gives you almost unlimited choice, why would you want to pay for TV channels as well?
---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:37 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetman11
Good points , I can see the satellite platform hemorrhaging customers especially with every additional bit of content it loses going forward. I have lots and lots of friends and colleagues who have already cancelled their Sky subscriptions with many moving to Freeview/Freesat complemented by Now for Sport and streaming apps.
I can see Sky going over to IPTV with a box sent out in the post and installed by the customer , Now pretty much does this already but at some point I see the two meeting in the middle.
The extra money Sky saves on third party content will be invested into its own content with content from the NBCUniversal stable also.
Linear will still be very much part of its offering specifically for Sport and News.
|
I agree with all of that, except your last sentence. Why pay twice for the same content?
__________________
Forumbox.co.uk
|
|
|
13-06-2021, 20:50
|
#296
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,313
|
Re: The future of television
You don't expect Sport and News to be consumed live
|
|
|
13-06-2021, 20:53
|
#297
|
Architect of Ideas
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,496
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
What point are you making here? Is it not self evident that if we are paying for pay-tv channels as well as streaming services, it will be more expensive than if we just had a bouquet of streamers providing the same content?
|
Well, no.
The more content splinters, and the greater demand for limited content becomes, drives up prices.
I see DAZN have trebled their prices in Italy following acquisition of Serie A rights.
Quote:
Yes, it is true that TV channels provide a service that some are perfectly happy with, but people are not going to pay twice for the same content, are they? Even if they are obsessed with channel numbers and advertisement breaks.
|
Why would they pay twice? As far as I can tell all the linear channels of any note have a streaming presence. They’re not mutually exclusive in the way you seem to portray.
Quote:
I’m not sure either what you are getting at in inferring that ‘quality of service to end users, in high and ultra high definition’ is even applicable to scheduled TV. There is far more content in UHD on the streamers, and nothing in SD.
|
Not for end users without internet or with slow speeds it isn’t.
For someone who objects to the Now TV boost I think you’ll find many more object to having to pay ever increasing amounts for a quality internet service just to receive television.
Quote:
So your assertion that this is not achievable by streaming is palpable nonsense.
|
Palpable nonsense? See above.
Quote:
No, quite clearly you wouldn’t, and that is my point. If your satellite or cable subscription gave you a package of streamers with all that content that gives you almost unlimited choice, why would you want to pay for TV channels as well?
|
Because the average user isn’t dogmatic like you are OB. They’ll watch linear when it suits, record when it suits, and stream when it suits (if of course their internet is up to it).
Quote:
I agree with all of that, except your last sentence. Why pay twice for the same content?
|
As you’ve been unable to quantify the cost of maintaining a linear presence in addition to streaming for existing linear channels - essentially the status quo - it’s clearly palpable nonsense that users are paying twice for the same content.
|
|
|
13-06-2021, 23:15
|
#298
|
Rise above the players
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,618
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetman11
You don't expect Sport and News to be consumed live
|
Who said that? Of course we will always have programmes to watch that are live. But live tv doesn’t have to be consumed on a conventional channel.
As I have said before, you can watch live tv on the BBC I-player.
__________________
Forumbox.co.uk
|
|
|
13-06-2021, 23:27
|
#299
|
Architect of Ideas
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,496
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetman11
You don't expect Sport and News to be consumed live
|
No he just expects it to be more convenient to access it through the jumble sale that is a streamers menu. Which brings us to if you can’t remember who is broadcasting a game having to access multiple different apps just to check.
Or buy a TV guide - how quaint - just to know who is showing what.
|
|
|
14-06-2021, 01:03
|
#300
|
cf.geek
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 754
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
No, quite clearly you wouldn’t, and that is my point. If your satellite or cable subscription gave you a package of streamers with all that content that gives you almost unlimited choice, why would you want to pay for TV channels as well?
|
As I said, not everyone is in the same race as you, heading for a common finish line. Those viewers determined to stay with scheduled pay-TV will have no reason to switch to these larger bundles, which you seem to desire, packaging the streamers. If they don't like the experience of searching for content on the streaming apps, they won't be be paying more to add the streamers to their TV bundle.
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:59.
|