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

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Horizon

I gave the the example of ESPN a week or so ago, as a very clear example.

People will not pay for both a linear ESPN service and streamer. One will live, the other will not. Place your bets which will be which.

BUt Sky's films channels are another good example. Sky now has the enormous Universal film library to feed on, but if the other studios withdraw their content from Sky, that not only puts the film channels at risk, but the entire linear tv satellite service.

Other studios need to develop viable models to monetise their content in a more effective way than Sky handing them money every year for however many years. They are deluding themselves if they believe the public will in meaningful numbers buy six, seven or eight (maybe even more?) standalone subscription services.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

More speculation based on virtually nothing. Disney are a small fraction of a huge vibrant global marketplace.

Disney is the first of a number of media companies to go down this route. I can imagine your jaw dropping next year as you see all these new VOD services starting up. The exclusivity of the material they add to their services is key to their success, so I'm afraid the TV channels won't get a look in.

It may not be news you want to hear, but it's happening anyway. If the linear channels don't produce more original content of their own, they will die.

Sad, but true. Don't shoot the messenger.

[muppetman11]

Perhaps someone needs to ask the BBC Director General Tony Hall why he's signed off on a deal to purchase UKTV or ask Comcast why they've bought Sky. Perhaps they should have spoke to you first OB.

Oh OB your comments gets funnier by the day.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Disney is the first of a number of media companies to go down this route. I can imagine your jaw dropping next year as you see all these new VOD services starting up. The exclusivity of the material they add to their services is key to their success, so I'm afraid the TV channels won't get a look in.

It may not be news you want to hear, but it's happening anyway. If the linear channels don't produce more original content of their own, they will die.

Sad, but true. Don't shoot the messenger.

Key to what success?

I wouldn’t expect my jaw to drop far. I’ve already stated I expect distributors to vertically integrate through selling direct to subscribers.

For a right-wing, free trade supporter, who embraces with open arms free market capitalism I’m surprised that what you consistently fail to demonstrate is where the money comes from to sustain all of these independent entities. It’s basic economics. All markets have finite size. Pay-TV is an already widely exploited market, by Comcast, Liberty and yes Netflix and Amazon. The delivery method is new but the market itself isn’t.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by jfman

Other studios need to develop viable models to monetise their content in a more effective way than Sky handing them money every year for however many years. They are deluding themselves if they believe the public will in meaningful numbers buy six, seven or eight (maybe even more?) standalone subscription services.

Not all at the same time every month, I agree, but most people will pick and mix their services to suit their needs as they do now with current subscription services.

---------- Post added at 19:56 ---------- Previous post was at 19:55 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Key to what success?

I wouldn’t expect my jaw to drop far. I’ve already stated I expect distributors to vertically integrate through selling direct to subscribers.

For a right-wing, free trade supporter, who embraces with open arms free market capitalism I’m surprised that what you consistently fail to demonstrate is where the money comes from to sustain all of these independent entities. It’s basic economics. All markets have finite size. Pay-TV is an already widely exploited market, by Comcast, Liberty and yes Netflix and Amazon. The delivery method is new but the market itself isn’t.

Consolidation. TV and film, telecoms and tech now all operate in the same space.

There's already only five major Hollywood studios left and they will all likely get bought out by the tech cos in the next few years. We've already got the next big merger about to start when Viacom and CBS come back together and John Malone has made no secret he wants to sell some/all of his companies out to them and merge that lot with a mobile player like Verizon too. Then, someone like Amazon will come and along and gobble the lot in one bite.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Horizon

Not all at the same time every month, no, but most people will pick and mix their services to suit their needs as they do now with current subscription services.

Which in turn hits revenue for someone. Netflix didn’t blow $20bn for a sizeable proportion of its subscriber base to give them $30 a year.

---------- Post added at 19:56 ---------- Previous post was at 19:55 ----------

Consolidation.

There's already only five major Hollywood studios left and they will all get bought out by the tech cos in the next few years, if not sooner. We've already got the next big merger about to start when Viacom and CBS come back together and John Malone has made no secret he wants to sell some/all of his companies out to them and preferably join up with a mobile player like Verizon too. Then, someone like Amazon will come and along and gobble the lot in one bite.

So we lose the competition that was supposed to drive prices down and just end up with a small number of large players anyway. So, and this is the question no-one can answer, how are Comcast/Liberty not well placed to work in this environment given they are well placed to offer both linear and VOD and have the subscriber base already?

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don't disagree, but we are talking about new shows coming through that are reserved for exclusive viewing on new streaming sites.

Originally Posted by jfman

Such as?

Where do they score on IMDB?

Lets wait and see how the new Star Wars series plays out. The new Star Trek series. Perhaps the next Game of Thrones prequel may be a streamer exclusive, so we'll see what numbers that gets, if the numbers get published.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Horizon

Lets wait and see how the new Star Wars series plays out. The new Star Trek series. Perhaps the next Game of Thrones prequel may be a streamer exclusive, so we'll see what numbers that gets, if the numbers get published.

The current streamers (Netflix etc) don't publish numbers. The only reason the nielsen ratings came about was to help broadcasters sell advertising space.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by jfman

Which in turn hits revenue for someone. Netflix didn’t blow $20bn for a sizeable proportion of its subscriber base to give them $30 a year.

Netflix is separate story. They had to build their content library up from nothing and to quote Reed Hastings, "they have to become HBO faster than HBO can become us." They've done it.

I would expect that the bulk of all the streamer's profits will be through DTC services, rather than going through a third party.

Originally Posted by jfman

So we lose the competition that was supposed to drive prices down and just end up with a small number of large players anyway. So, and this is the question no-one can answer, how are Comcast/Liberty not well placed to work in this environment given they are well placed to offer both linear and VOD and have the subscriber base already?

Just like the supermarkets, I don't expect anymore than half a dozen large players in this field and the compettion will be fierce. Whether they reach a equilibrium and prices stabilise, remains to be seen.

I never said that Comcast wouldn't be one of them, clearly they are, but more consolidation is coming and I'm certainly not clear what name plate will be on the front doors of the HQs of the Big 5 (or however many cos it will be) in the next five years, but probably Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Netflix.

[jfman]

Why would it go the way of the supermarkets and not the Big Six energy suppliers? Consistently high and rising prices. They control end to end distribution.

Supermarkets are ‘kept honest’ to a greater or lesser extent by alternatives out there.

Oligopoly is not equal to perfect competition. Not by a long shot.

[muppetman11]

Amazon already has its own Studios.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by jfman

Why would it go the way of the supermarkets and not the Big Six energy suppliers? Consistently high and rising prices. They control end to end distribution.

Supermarkets are ‘kept honest’ to a greater or lesser extent by alternatives out there.

Oligopoly is not equal to perfect competition. Not by a long shot.

Indeed. Which is why I think the future of Hollywood will look exactly like it did when it originally started.

When the Studios started up, everything was done in-house. They employed all their own craftsmen, controlled distribution of their content and had exclusive deals with the top actors. It will go back to that, I reckon, just in a modern way.

At the moment, the Hollywood companies sell content to each other and many other broadcasters and distributors around the world. Soon, they will fully control their own content again, not sell it to others and probably sit around the table with the other big companies and fix the prices, if they're allowed to get away with it.

---------- Post added at 20:42 ---------- Previous post was at 20:41 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Amazon already has its own Studios.

It's tiny. It will look much different if/when they gobble up a Hollywood major and some analysts are expecting that will be the CBS/Viacom company to be.

[jfman]

Horizon, your views and mine aren’t actually a million miles apart on this in the medium to long term.

[Horizon]

Numbers play a big part in this and will determine things and who the winners will be and who the losers will be. If, as I expect, Netflix get at least half a billion subscribers, spending $20bn on content each year becomes sustainable. Will Disney or the Apple owned Disney (as I expect it to be) will they catch up with Netflix? Will there be a third truly global player, a fourth and fifth? We'll probably know within the next five years.

As for linear tv, I've said before, what linear tv channels that remain in the future, I expect they will act like shop windows into the streaming services. Perhaps the big streamers will take ads, perhaps not, but the free services will be what linear channels survive and I expect most of the pay tv channels to wither away. Well, that's what Murdoch thought and as he sold the bulk of his empire on that belief, I go with that.

---------- Post added at 21:28 ---------- Previous post was at 21:04 ----------

And just coming back to the comparison with the energy companies, the big tech/media/telco companies may not get everything their own way.

I've spoken about for years about what I originally called the portals, which in today's terms would probably be called social media.

As well as the big media/tech companies, there could literally hundreds/thousands of sites producing quality content and people come together from around the world on their favourite subjects and chip in to fund it, what we would now call crowdfunding. These sites may not attract the big name actors or directors, but that does not mean they would all be rubbish or not find their own niche. Look at youtube. There's rubbish on there, but also quality stuff.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Why would it go the way of the supermarkets and not the Big Six energy suppliers? Consistently high and rising prices. They control end to end distribution.

Supermarkets are ‘kept honest’ to a greater or lesser extent by alternatives out there.

Oligopoly is not equal to perfect competition. Not by a long shot.

You can't compare this with the energy companies, because there is no choice other than go with one of them.

Nobody forces you to subscribe to any TV service, do they?