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

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The shift towards streamers to view original shows has increased substantially. If this trend continues, it will be a major worry for our TV channels. Mind you, the dearth of good material now being shown on those channels with the lack of filming during the pandemic emergency isn’t helping.

https://www.rapidtvnews.com/20201108...tional-tv.html

Would be interesting to see how this looks in the UK. (This is a US report.)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Would be interesting to see how this looks in the UK. (This is a US report.)

We generally go the way of the US!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

We generally go the way of the US!

Except it was Pay-TV vs streaming, and over a 3rd of households in the U.K. just use Terrestrial TV.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Except it was Pay-TV vs streaming, and over a 3rd of households in the U.K. just use Terrestrial TV.

True, but as I have pointed out before, we are looking at the trends, an increasing choice of OTT services (including free advertisement supported services) and super-fast broadband being rolled out across the country, together with an increase of new material being shown on a 'Direct to Consumer' basis, leading to the erosion of quality content available to TV channels over time.The recent abolition of Disney channels except by way of their streamer and Disney's decision to concentrate their content on Disney +, with the clear threat to the future of Sky Cinema Disney, is an example of this. As the quality of content declines and the number of channels on Freeview reduces due to the inevitable decline in advertising revenue, this will encourage the use of OTT services, particularly the free ones.

I get the counter-arguments. However, in my view, the constant stream of evidence coming through that supports my take on this is a fact that is not easily and credibly discounted.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

This will never happen. It can never happen. It is Netflix’s core strategy to be a commissioner of original content. This is the case because it realised long ago that simply being a video library would never appeal to enough people to keep them subscribing. They can no more stop commissioning original content than the BBC can - and significantly reducing commissioning would be tantamount to the same thing.

You may be right, Chris, but without evidence to support your view, it is a little inadvisable to say it will never happen. Strategies change, just as they have appeared to have changed in respect of CBS All Access.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2020...amount-launch/

I believe that Netflix always will be the leader in providing original content. They will never stop that, and I didn't say they would. However, there will be scope for reducing the number of originals they are producing once they are satisfied with the selection available.

Context is important here, Chris. Harry was asking for ideas on how Netflix could save money. That is one.

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

If reduced original commissions risks losing them long term subscribers, then farming out their older material to other distributors risks their ability to attract new ones. Nobody gets Netflix to watch the entire back catalogue - there’s too broad a range of material to be of interest to any one person (which is entirely how it’s meant to be). But if you let people watch your older material without subscribing to Netflix, why would they then subscribe to Netflix?

Unlike the BBC and ITV, which are designed around mostly one-time broadcast of original content, Netflix’s lack of a linear schedule means the only way it can flesh out its offering is by always having its entire catalogue available at all times.

Well, there's the thing. Netflix have so many original films and TV series, I cannot see anyone being put off by a reduction of, say, 50% of brand new originals each week.

After 5 or maybe even 10 years, I cannot see Netflix losing any sleep in allowing other providers to have access to selected material. They already do this actually, but I think there is far more scope to do so than they do now.

The reason you would wish to subscribe to Netflix, obviously, is to view more recent material. Remember, The Simpsons pretty well defines Sky One, but they still allow other TV channels have the rights to screen the older programmes. That doesn't stop people from wanting Sky.

---------- Post added at 13:43 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Apple TV and Amazon Prime Video already do exactly this. Other similar platforms specialise in only offering PPV content. It’s a crowded market and entering it would muddy Netflix’s brand positioning. At present it is very clear what you get with Netflix. I doubt they could make enough extra money to justify the upheaval.

Really, Chris? I am suggesting that PPV could be added to the catalogue, so how that would put people off Netflix is difficult to comprehend?

Look, I know other providers do this. They get a bit of stick for it as well, because they pay a subscription and then they have to pay more. In my view, these streamer service providers have got it wrong. They mix all the free and PPV material up together, which both confuses and disappoints people, leaving them disillusioned. Look how many people on these forums have complained about that very thing.

However, if Netflix entered into PPV as an additional service, with the PPV material in a completely different area of the site, and advertised as a way that their subscribers could still watch material for which the rights were held by a different provider, this would raise the extra money without alienating those with a Netflix subscription. There is a lot to be said about having all your content in one place.

I would have thought the PPV market was quite lucrative, but I don't have any figures to hand to be certain.

---------- Post added at 13:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

You are literally the only person regularly contributing to this thread that thinks this is what you originally said. That’s why Harry repeated it, it’s why I repeat it from time to time, and it’s why it’s never going away.

This is a silly argument. Are you actually disputing that I have been specifying 2035 as the date since 2015?

I have explained multiple times that it is the broadband coverage that I believe will be in a state that will enable the vast majority to be able to access the streamers by 2025. I still believe that the TV channels as they exist now will be pretty well dead by 2035.

Why do you think Apple and Amazon *don’t* separate out their PPV content from the rest?

Annoying as it is, they do it because that’s how you get people to pay for it - by showing it in a list of stuff they’ve been looking for and tempting them to pay the extra just as a one-off. The substantial amount of bundled content is more than enough for most viewers; if the PPV stuff is hidden most of them won’t bother to look.

Meanwhile I shall keep my counsel and indulge in a private chuckle at you admitting you find anything difficult to comprehend.

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

This is a silly argument. Are you actually disputing that I have been specifying 2035 as the date since 2015?

I have explained multiple times that it is the broadband coverage that I believe will be in a state that will enable the vast majority to be able to access the streamers by 2025. I still believe that the TV channels as they exist now will be pretty well dead by 2035.

And I’ve quoted your original posts multiple times, showing that this is not what you originally said and you changed your mind after being challenged by multiple other contributors to the thread at the time.

One day when I’m bored enough I dare say I’ll re-quote them again. For the time being, the quotes are not so far back in this thread for anyone interested in looking.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------



And I’ve quoted your original posts multiple times, showing that this is not what you originally said and you changed your mind after being challenged by multiple other contributors to the thread at the time.

One day when I’m bored enough I dare say I’ll re-quote them again. For the time being, the quotes are not so far back in this thread for anyone interested in looking.

Whatever, Chris. That doesn't take away my point that 2035 is the date I have been giving for the last 5 years. That is not going to change.

[muppetman11]

You keep telling us Netflix is the leader in the amount of Original content when in fact many media companies produce far greater amounts of original content annually.

[Raider999]

This is one thread I will not miss now I have ditched VM

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Raider999

This is one thread I will not miss now I have ditched VM

That’s a point what does OB do when his Mrs allows him to ditch VM?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Whatever, Chris. That doesn't take away my point that 2035 is the date I have been giving for the last 5 years. That is not going to change.

"Whatever"?

As a counter-argument, that’s up there with "your mum!"

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

You keep telling us Netflix is the leader in the amount of Original content when in fact many media companies produce far greater amounts of original content annually.

Who?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

You keep telling us Netflix is the leader in the amount of Original content when in fact many media companies produce far greater amounts of original content annually.

Netflix is the leading streamer in that regard, which is the point I was making.

---------- Post added at 09:57 ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

"Whatever"?

As a counter-argument, that’s up there with "your mum!"

An appropriate word to use, in the circumstances.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Who?

Disney and Comcast are two.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Disney and Comcast are two.

Without stats it's hard to prove but I would add WarnerMedia, CBS Viacom and Sony in there too. Plus, there's probably large non-English language companies in Russia, India and China that probably need to be considered too.