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

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by jfman

Very true. I think we all recognise the takeover/merger and consolidation behaviour as a fairly natural occurrence in the market (as indeed, in all markets not just television).

It's a leap to then attribute it solely to streaming, or to take anything meaningful as to the viability of linear/subscription television going forward. Especially as we have more linear channels than at any point in history, I believe.

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. Although, at the moment this doesn't look like it will effect the Disney linear channels on Sky, such as they are and so far, no one else is following Disney's move.

As you say, there are more channels than ever, which is why I don't believe they can all survive in tandem with several streaming services too,. And this current wave of media consolidation is the perfect opportunity for the media cos to reduce some of their linear channels.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Being our self-appointed resident economist, you must know that the channels will have to remain financially viable to survive.

As do streamers, Old Boy. There’s nothing unique about the delivery method that exempts them from the rules.

So with this idea of yours (which flies in the face of opinion in the TV industry), where would all these hundreds of channels get their content from to keep audience figures up to a sustainable level if the streamers take all the decent stuff for themselves?

It is true that some people are happy to watch any old rubbish served up, and some are happy with watching repeat after repeat of old material they have seen already, but the majority of viewers would not be happy to watch that.

Given 2% of all Netflix views are the TV series “Friends” that’s not unique to linear television either. What you think viewers want to watch and what they actually watch are two different things, arguably demonstrated by the success of ITV1, and if not by that certainly the amount of channels churning out old content.

Can you actually find genuine TV industry quotes that say my opinions are invalid or ironically will those be unsubstantiated opinion pieces themselves?

The main demand these days is for quality original drama/comedy; factual/nature programming; and live sport. The smaller channels will lose out when most decent content has gone to the streamers or is retained by the bigger TV companies, who themselves will rather hold on to their originals to use on streamers of their own, such as Britbox and Now TV.

All in your subjective fantasyland. Go onto the BARB site and find the lowest rated channels going then check their schedules. If streamers think there’s a market for that at £5.99 a month then good luck to them.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You cannot, logically, claim that because we have more channels than ever before that they will not begin a long decline before long due to the proliferation of streamers, changing viewing habits and the 'direct to consumer' approach of the studios, which is gaining traction.

But the DTC approach has only just started and so far, Disney is the only Hollywood major going purely down this route.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Being our self-appointed resident economist, you must know that the channels will have to remain financially viable to survive.

So with this idea of yours (which flies in the face of opinion in the TV industry), where would all these hundreds of channels get their content from to keep audience figures up to a sustainable level if the streamers take all the decent stuff for themselves?

It is true that some people are happy to watch any old rubbish served up, and some are happy with watching repeat after repeat of old material they have seen already, but the majority of viewers would not be happy to watch that.

The main demand these days is for quality original drama/comedy; factual/nature programming; and live sport. The smaller channels will lose out when most decent content has gone to the streamers or is retained by the bigger TV companies, who themselves will rather hold on to their originals to use on streamers of their own, such as Britbox and Now TV.

In the U.K., Friends was the most watched show on Netflix; in the USA, The Office and Friends were the two top shows...

https://www.joe.co.uk/entertainment/...friends-194366

https://people.com/tv/the-office-bea...-show-netflix/

btw, not nice to continue with the ad hominem attacks on people who hold a different view to you - he has never described himself as "the self-appointed resident economist", just pointed out that he is an economist.

It weakens your position when you decry the person rather than refuting the argument.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

This shows just how serious the loss of content available to our conventional TV stations will be. And this article merely concentrates on Disney. Think about how the TV channels will fill their schedules if most studios pull content in this way.

BUt as I just said, Disney is the only co doing this so far.

AT&T(Warners) did a new five year deal with Sky to keep Sky Atlantic fed with stuff and so we won't see HBOMax here for at least five years.

ViacomCBS said they're happy to work with third parties and allow their content to remain on other platforms in parallel with having their own DTC services and Comcast have made similar noises about Peacock and allowing their content on other platforms too. No idea about Sony, but I doubt they will be around in their current form in the next year or so.

So, at the moment it's only Disney meeting Netflix head on out of the traditional Hollywood players. It will be interesting to see who has the right policy.

---------- Post added at 09:40 ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 ----------

Originally Posted by Media Boy

OMG Sky has lost WWE (From January 2020) now no more "The Simpsons" on Sky One.

Is that confirmed that the Simpsons is going?

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Horizon

BUt as I just said, Disney is the only co doing this so far.

AT&T(Warners) did a new five year deal with Sky to keep Sky Atlantic fed with stuff and so we won't see HBOMax here for at least five years.

ViacomCBS said they're happy to work with third parties and allow their content to remain on other platforms in parallel with having their own DTC services and Comcast have made similar noises about Peacock and allowing their content on other platforms too. No idea about Sony, but I doubt they will be around in their current form in the next year or so.

So, at the moment it's only Disney meeting Netflix head on out of the traditional Hollywood players. It will be interesting to see who has the right policy.

---------- Post added at 09:40 ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 ----------

Is that confirmed that the Simpsons is going?

Its Disney IP, so yes.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s subjective to say Sky will have to do a lot more. We’ve already got competition from Netflix, Amazon and it’s barely made a dent. What the numbers show is Sky remains must-have and the rest are often add ons to existing pay-tv households.

Unless and until anyone is in a position to buy meaningful football rights Sky’s position in the market is safe. Again, I’ll take the opportunity to point out that Sky correctly predicted the fall in the rights this time out, despite a lot of noise (and ultimately no action) from streamers/social media companies in the first round of bidding.

Agree that the football rights is the big thing to watch out for, but as to your first paragraph, when did Sky last publish their tv subscribers...? So, I disagree about the dent comment.

Here's a Guardian article from a year ago on this:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...by-end-of-year

[muppetman11]

The difference being Sky is making money Netflix is losing it hand over fist.

Explain to me how Netflix turns that around ?

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

The difference being Sky is making money Netflix is losing it hand over fist.

Explain to me how Netflix turns that around ?

I don't think Netflix will be around in 10 years time tbh especially now the big boys such as Disney, WB etc are launching services and HULU is rumoured to be entering the uk market too.

[Raider999]

There are too many channels anyway, not sure why minor channels have +1 versions in these days of multi-tuner recorders.

I rarely step outside my list of favourites, around 30, I seriously doubt if any of these will disappear in the next 10 years - so my viewing is unlikely to change at all

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Its Disney IP, so yes.

The only stuff being removed according to that article was from Sky's on demand services and no mention of the Simpsons at all.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Horizon

The only stuff being removed according to that article was from Sky's on demand services and no mention of the Simpsons at all.

Thankfully us Brits can still watch The Simpsons as we always have done on Sky One. However, come March 2020, unless Disney address the complaints we may be forced to endure the same frustration.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/13/simps...okes-11089828/

Originally Posted by Horizon

Agree that the football rights is the big thing to watch out for, but as to your first paragraph, when did Sky last publish their tv subscribers...? So, I disagree about the dent comment.

Here's a Guardian article from a year ago on this:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...by-end-of-year

https://www.barb.co.uk/tv-landscape-...y-tv-platform/

[Mad Max]

Terrestrial defo on the slide there.

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Terrestrial defo on the slide there.

"Terrestrial only" 10.18 million nine years ago, now it's 11.58 million...