VOD : Netflix/Streaming Services

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k

How's Disney+ doing on VM then?
Didn't you say you'd be surprised if it wasn't on VM on October 1st?

Well, it’s not, is it? It would have made sense, though, with the Disney channels going.

I really don’t know why Virgin have to take such a long time negotiating these deals, but I’m sure we will get the service eventually.

---------- Post added at 11:48 ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The only person I see dismissing anything out of hand on a routine basis is you.

Everyone else sees the consolidation of the global market into a handful of companies who will dominate the market. You’re the one persisting that this must be platforms which exclusively stream.

Others rationally contest that viewers follow content and that Sky (and other incumbents) have solid business models and streaming presence for those ideological about these things.

And the only reason I say that is because over time, the majority of people will get to appreciate the ease of on demand viewing compared with the alternative. Despite what you say, I don’t believe for one minute that the broadcasters will bother with keeping the TV channels alive when only a minority of the population watch them. How much did the BBC save when BBC3 went on line? £50m! Hardly a paltry sum. And yes, I know that they are bringing the channel back, which is the right thing to do at this time. It was too early to take the channel on line when they did - the time is not yet right.

It’s just what I think. You may disagree, but no need to get in a state about it.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, it’s not, is it? It would have made sense, though, with the Disney channels going.

I really don’t know why Virgin have to take such a long time negotiating these deals, but I’m sure we will get the service eventually.

---------- Post added at 11:48 ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 ----------



And the only reason I say that is because over time, the majority of people will get to appreciate the ease of on demand viewing compared with the alternative. Despite what you say, I don’t believe for one minute that the broadcasters will bother with keeping the TV channels alive when only a minority of the population watch them. How much did the BBC save when BBC3 went on line? £50m! Hardly a paltry sum. And yes, I know that they are bringing the channel back, which is the right thing to do at this time. It was too early to take the channel on line when they did - the time is not yet right.

It’s just what I think. You may disagree, but no need to get in a state about it.

I'm only ribbing you OB mate i has some news for you though as of today we have "D+, VM,BT,YV" appeared on our systems for contracts so looks like things are starting to happen.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k

I'm only ribbing you OB mate i has some news for you though as of today we have "D+, VM,BT,YV" appeared on our systems for contracts so looks like things are starting to happen.

I am sorry that post came across as a bit shirty if you read it a certain way, but I didn’t mean it like that!

Let’s hope the D+ does mean ‘Disney+ and not Discovery+, although both would be nice! Incidentally, is the ‘VM,BT,YV’ all part of the D+ code or are they codes for separate services? It sounds curious to me - are we getting something from BT? YV could be ‘You View’ but I don’t know how we would benefit from that. Very strange.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I am sorry that post came across as a bit shirty if you read it a certain way, but I didn’t mean it like that!

Let’s hope the D+ does mean ‘Disney+ and not Discovery+, although both would be nice! Incidentally, is the ‘VM,BT,YV’ all part of the D+ code or are they codes for separate services? It sounds curious to me - are we getting something from BT? YV could be ‘You View’ but I don’t know how we would benefit from that. Very strange.

It could mean Dplay too hopefully find out more, i've sent it up to the relevant department now so just a waiting game.
Yeah vm= virgin, bt=bt, yv=youview.
What it means is D+ is relevant to those 3 platforms at the moment nothing from BT to VM as of yet.
Also noted Origintv has officially launched now full, this is a tv service from Origin Broadband a company i'd steer well clear off.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, it’s not, is it? It would have made sense, though, with the Disney channels going.

I really don’t know why Virgin have to take such a long time negotiating these deals, but I’m sure we will get the service eventually.

As TalkTalk and BT don't have it either, I suggest that it's probably something more than just VM dragging its heels..

Disney + launched in the UK on 31 March 2020.

Six months' as a Sky exclusive would have seen it available on other pay TV platforms this month which as you say would have been a smooth handover when the linear channels closed.

However, I suspect Disney are quite happy for customers to sign up directly without paying any sign-up commission to VM.

My thinking is next year now and possibly on 31 March again for a launch on VM.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, it’s not, is it? It would have made sense, though, with the Disney channels going.

I really don’t know why Virgin have to take such a long time negotiating these deals, but I’m sure we will get the service eventually.

---------- Post added at 11:48 ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 ----------



And the only reason I say that is because over time, the majority of people will get to appreciate the ease of on demand viewing compared with the alternative. Despite what you say, I don’t believe for one minute that the broadcasters will bother with keeping the TV channels alive when only a minority of the population watch them. How much did the BBC save when BBC3 went on line? £50m! Hardly a paltry sum. And yes, I know that they are bringing the channel back, which is the right thing to do at this time. It was too early to take the channel on line when they did - the time is not yet right.

It’s just what I think. You may disagree, but no need to get in a state about it.

£50m is blatantly not the cost of running a TV channel if you own the content anyway. A trawl of any two bob channel on the Sky/Virgin EPG and their investor relations and declarations to Companies House will verify that.

However that doesn't suit your narrative to seek out objective facts.

[cheekyangus]

Originally Posted by jfman

£50m is blatantly not the cost of running a TV channel if you own the content anyway. A trawl of any two bob channel on the Sky/Virgin EPG and their investor relations and declarations to Companies House will verify that.

However that doesn't suit your narrative to seek out objective facts.

Given BBC3 (broadcast version) at the end was filled with back to back Family Guy and it's related shows, it hardly owned all the broadcast content. I'm not saying FG and the like cost them £50m by the way!

Back then, to my recollection, the BBC said it cost £80m to run the channel and £50m would be saved by going online only. I never believed that figure given it shared transmission space with CBBC and that was continuing.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Why are we comparing Netflix to three Sky Channels

Netflix for me is a nice little add on but it has to be careful how far it pushes prices.

+1

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

£50m is blatantly not the cost of running a TV channel if you own the content anyway. A trawl of any two bob channel on the Sky/Virgin EPG and their investor relations and declarations to Companies House will verify that.

However that doesn't suit your narrative to seek out objective facts.

£50m was the saving made when the BBC3 channel closed. And that doesn’t suit your narrative, jfman!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

£50m was the saving made when the BBC3 channel closed. And that doesn’t suit your narrative, jfman!

That has nothing to do with the cost of maintaining a linear presence.

As others have pointed out content left the channel as part of the savings. And they filled BBC 1 and 2 with some of the leftover content. Another spreadsheet wheeze for the BBC but nothing to do with the cost of maintaining a linear presence.

As you’ve correctly pointed out they are reversing the decision. Clearly, because little of this online content had the reach of the linear channel.

I could give the BBC a way to save billions by - closing down. It’s hardly a like for like comparison.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

That has nothing to do with the cost of maintaining a linear presence.

As others have pointed out content left the channel as part of the savings. And they filled BBC 1 and 2 with some of the leftover content. Another spreadsheet wheeze for the BBC but nothing to do with the cost of maintaining a linear presence.

As you’ve correctly pointed out they are reversing the decision. Clearly, because little of this online content had the reach of the linear channel.

I could give the BBC a way to save billions by - closing down. It’s hardly a like for like comparison.

It is true that there would have been a saving from not having to fill the schedules with all that pathetic filler content. What wasn’t filler was put onto BBC3 Online.

Your analogy is off the wall. BBC3 is returning as a conventional channel because it was far too early to close it down. In good time, all the Beeb’s channels will close down together and the content made available on a streamer.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is true that there would have been a saving from not having to fill the schedules with all that pathetic filler content. What wasn’t filler was put onto BBC3 Online.

Your analogy is off the wall. BBC3 is returning as a conventional channel because it was far too early to close it down. In good time, all the Beeb’s channels will close down together and the content made available on a streamer.

My analogy is no more off the wall than your implication that there's a lot of £50 millions out there to be saved from going streaming only.

If there was you'd perhaps have a point. However it's simply not true.

The fact the BBC are going in reverse suggests you may be getting further away from, not closer to, your 2035 vision.

You're forgetting (as you always do) is that the BBC get ratings for simply being top of the EPG. A prized position they simply will not give up. The same content on BBC 1 rates higher than BBC 2. Same goes for ITV for major news coverage (when ITV did such a thing) and simulcasts of the World Cup final or major England games.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

My analogy is no more off the wall than your implication that there's a lot of £50 millions out there to be saved from going streaming only.

If there was you'd perhaps have a point. However it's simply not true.

The fact the BBC are going in reverse suggests you may be getting further away from, not closer to, your 2035 vision.

You're forgetting (as you always do) is that the BBC get ratings for simply being top of the EPG. A prized position they simply will not give up. The same content on BBC 1 rates higher than BBC 2. Same goes for ITV for major news coverage (when ITV did such a thing) and simulcasts of the World Cup final or major England games.

Your lack of vision is nothing short of astounding. Nothing will ever change according to your assessment. History proves you wrong. All things must pass.

As I said, the Beeb closed BBC3 prematurely, and I did say that at the time. That has been proved true.

Yes, being top of the EPG is worth a great deal.But that is now. If most of the other channels have already closed down and most people have abandoned the system we have now, what then?

Your mistake is in believing there will not be a big shift in viewing patterns over the next decade or so. If that doesn’t happen, I will be the first to say I was wrong.

But can you put your hand on your heart and say you really don’t believe that a viewer shift of this kind will never happen under any circumstances? What makes you so sure?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Your lack of vision is nothing short of astounding. Nothing will ever change according to your assessment. History proves you wrong. All things must pass.

As I said, the Beeb closed BBC3 prematurely, and I did say that at the time. That has been proved true.

Yes, being top of the EPG is worth a great deal.But that is now. If most of the other channels have already closed down and most people have abandoned the system we have now, what then?

Your mistake is in believing there will not be a big shift in viewing patterns over the next decade or so. If that doesn’t happen, I will be the first to say I was wrong.

But can you put your hand on your heart and say you really don’t believe that a viewer shift of this kind will never happen under any circumstances? What makes you so sure?

On demand didn’t kill linear, Sky+/TiVo hasn’t killed ‘live’ television. iPlayer hasn’t killed off traditional BBC viewing.

There’s been plenty of opportunities for this viewing shift that have never come to pass.

I’ve explained before, multiple times, that you have never explained how consumer behaviour changes “to zero” without Government intervention. Internet hasn’t even got 100% penetration let alone the superfast speeds needed for HD broadcasts and not everyone wants to subscribe to an expensive broadband solution for television.

Your view that most other channels closing down is bad for channels left on EPGs is a bad thing. On the contrary it’s a good thing. It is greater prominence for those that remain.

Let’s take it to an extreme and there’s ONE linear channel. Only one. You switch your TV on and it’s there. Are you telling me that Amazon, Netflix, Sky or anyone else wouldn’t fall over themselves to showcase their content there for the paltry sums it costs to broadcast? A 24 hour TV channel beamed into every household in the country. The only one? It’d be Sky Sports News on steroids.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

On demand didn’t kill linear, Sky+/TiVo hasn’t killed ‘live’ television. iPlayer hasn’t killed off traditional BBC viewing.

There’s been plenty of opportunities for this viewing shift that have never come to pass.

I’ve explained before, multiple times, that you have never explained how consumer behaviour changes “to zero” without Government intervention. Internet hasn’t even got 100% penetration let alone the superfast speeds needed for HD broadcasts and not everyone wants to subscribe to an expensive broadband solution for television.

Your view that most other channels closing down is bad for channels left on EPGs is a bad thing. On the contrary it’s a good thing. It is greater prominence for those that remain.

Let’s take it to an extreme and there’s ONE linear channel. Only one. You switch your TV on and it’s there. Are you telling me that Amazon, Netflix, Sky or anyone else wouldn’t fall over themselves to showcase their content there for the paltry sums it costs to broadcast? A 24 hour TV channel beamed into every household in the country. The only one? It’d be Sky Sports News on steroids.

First. We agree that streaming services have not killed off the TV channels. Yet. I have never suggested that this change will happen immediately. So why do you think this is significant?

The point I am making is that there will come a tipping point. We have not reached it yet, but give it another 5 years, and you will be ignorant or a flat earther not to notice a sea change in viewer habits.

Your scenario of one channel left...what if no-one even bothers with this mode of transmission anymore? This is a concept you seem to be unable to grasp. If you take your blinkers off, you will start to understand that people will migrate to where the best content is. People will follow the herd. But I know you have a problem with all things ‘herd’!