VOD : Linear is old tech - on demand is the future

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You need to add AVOD options to your equation, jfman.

No real need. The advertising market will follow the viewers which I have no reason to expect will not be ITV, Channel 4, Five across all methods of distribution - linear, on demand and streaming. The amounts left over will be so minuscule as to be irrelevant.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You need to add AVOD options to your equation, jfman.

This is true Old Boy, but the popularity of Netflix was based on ad free viewing, so I would expect those ad based streamers to be in my lower tier of steamers, not the ones sitting at the top table. Then again, everyone may prefer the free streaming options.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by Horizon

But there won't be dozens, there aren't dozens now, not out of the big film/tv streamers. There will be a top tier of three or four "must have" streamers that most people will pay for and then a lower tier of "optional" streamers that people may pay for sometimes.

I'm pretty sure Disney and Netflix will in that top tier, it's just a case of seeing who will join them at the top table.

As Disney has already said that the price of Disney+ is only introductory, I would expect all the streamers to raise their prices in "true" pay tv fashion eventuality. As you yourself have said, the new streaming world doesn't automatically mean everything will be cheaper, it could get a lot pricier.

On your second paragraph, this is why Netflix has had to spend so heavily, to create a programming library from scratch. Disney et all have the inherent advantage in that they don't need to create a new series every five minutes due to the enormous archives they posses. Even if films/tv shows are 30 years old, they will be "new" to someone and some things (like people) age better than others.

And as we've seen in the States, guaranteeing "some" revenues is the reason some platforms and content companies have come together and I expect that process to continue.

As for space in the UK market, depends what the market looks like. Possibly the licence fee may not be compulsory soon, so that would be a game changer... and I've already expressed a view in other threads about how I see the platforms changing in the future, ie by merging.

I do think there is space in the market for two Netflix's, in fact at least three or four, but not three or four big streamers AND a pay tv package AND paying for the licence fee too.

Which is why I still believe the bulk of the pay tv channels will disappear over the next ten years and the streamers will in effect take their place with Sky/VM/BT bundling them as they do with channels now.

The general feeling seems to be that people watching streams dip in and out of subscribing on a regular basis.

This argument flies in the face of 'a must have' streamer - this would suggest you have them as a base and add others for limited time periods.

This means £30pm for your base and a number of others at £5-7pm each - starts getting expensive without ever guaranteeing you can see what you want.

[Horizon]

It all depends what people want.

If people have kids and like Star Wars, then I would assume that Disney+ becomes a must have every month. If new tv shows are the priority, then Netflix is the must have. It all depends on what services becomes available over the next year, what they show and at what cost.

Don't forget that Apple, Amazon and Netflix are "new" to the media world and show additional content than what has previously been available from a sat/cable subscription. So, yes, if everyone wanted everything, the cost will be much higher.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Horizon

This is true Old Boy, but the popularity of Netflix was based on ad free viewing, so I would expect those ad based streamers to be in my lower tier of steamers, not the ones sitting at the top table. Then again, everyone may prefer the free streaming options.

I expect there to be a variety of revenue options available, the most obvious being:

- Subscription
- Advertisement supported with no subscription
- Advertisement supported with a lower level subscription
- Pay per view

Given that, there is room for a variety of streamers to appear over time.

Clearly, they will not all be able to go subscription only because people cannot keep shelling out for more and more services.

[Richardr]

Originally Posted by Horizon

The media cos withdrawing their content from others and keeping it on their own services, is a result of the streamers though, as with the Disney announcement that they're withdrawing content from Sky.

Just to be clear, there has been no announcement from Disney.

What there is is a news story from The Guardian based on a research report from Ampere that the number of ABC owned seasons on Sky Now's box sets has reduced from 99 last spring to 45 seasons in October. What that means is anybody's guess - clearly there are many box sets still there per the report, but it may just be winding down over a long period.

Looking at Virgin Media, there appear to be 8 different ABC series box sets at the moment, one of which is mentioned in the article, Greys Anatomy, and that alone has 14 seasons available.

I think we will need to wait until Disney+ launches in the UK before we can be clear what is happening. There could be different answers for ABC content vs Disney content and TV vs Films.

[Horizon]

...indeed, as I've been saying across two different threads.

The only information concerns old stuff on Sky's on- demand servive, no mention has been made of anything being removed from Sky's channels and I doubt there will be, at least this time around.

On your last sentence, I reckon the difference will not be between the various divisions of Disney, but the content itself, ie some stuff like The Mandolorian will only be on Disney+, where as new episodes of existing shows will stay on Sky's channels for now.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Richardr

Just to be clear, there has been no announcement from Disney.

What there is is a news story from The Guardian based on a research report from Ampere that the number of ABC owned seasons on Sky Now's box sets has reduced from 99 last spring to 45 seasons in October. What that means is anybody's guess - clearly there are many box sets still there per the report, but it may just be winding down over a long period.

Looking at Virgin Media, there appear to be 8 different ABC series box sets at the moment, one of which is mentioned in the article, Greys Anatomy, and that alone has 14 seasons available.

I think we will need to wait until Disney+ launches in the UK before we can be clear what is happening. There could be different answers for ABC content vs Disney content and TV vs Films.

Indeed, we will have to wait and see. However, the fact that they are already pulling Disney content from Netflix is not a good sign.

Let's face it, if Disney + is to draw a big audience, having all their content on their new streamer makes sense. After all, if you are content with what you can watch now on Sky Disney, Disney Channel and Disney XD, why would you also subscribe to Disney+?

Although I would not rule out some sort of deal between Disney and Sky to preserve the continuation of the existing channels, I think the current contracts will not be renewed when they expire. Instead, Sky viewers are likely to get the streamer included on one or two of Sky's subscription packages.

A compromise might be that the channels continue on a non-exclusive basis, but viewers could only access them with a Disney+ subscription. That might work.

[muppetman11]

What no new articles from OB this new year.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

What no new articles from OB this new year.

Maybe he is on his month long world cruise paid for by Netflix..

Play nicely...

[OLD BOY]

If the terrestrial and pay TV channels are to survive in the future, they will have to pay more attention to the revenues side of their operations. ITV has taken measures to be less reliant on advertising, but even now, their woes continue when advertising revenues decline.

Despite some believing that pay tv channels will survive even with a reduction in advertising, I think this has its limits. There are only so many efficiences that you can make without leading to a decline in output.

To my mind, ITV's continuing difficulties tell me that traditional TV has its days numbered.

https://www.rapidtvnews.com/20200506...#axzz6Leubj4ud

Oh look, another digital marketing blog.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Oh look, another digital marketing blog.

You are clutching at straws there, Chris. This has been widely reported.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are clutching at straws there, Chris. This has been widely reported.

Er no, what's straw-clutching is you quoting an article that specifically discusses the business impact caused by lockdown and using it to make entirely generalised comments about the state of ad-supported TV.

What you're saying may or may not be valid, but the article you referenced doesn't support your argument even slightly, and even suggests the opposite, once virus related losses are accounted for:

Broadcast revenue was up 2% year-on-year at £500 million, with ITV total advertising up 2% as originally guided, and online revenues up 26%.