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

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It amounts to less programmes available, and 5Spike is going as well. I think the process has begun. Over the coming months and years, you will see more and more channels cease broadcasting and not being replaced. However, VOD will proliferate and overall we will have more choice.

On this occasion, the three channels being axed (and there maybe more to follow) is the result of the CBS/Viacom merger and Comcast's takeover of Sky. There are just too many channels.

However, if a pattern starts to emerge here that media companies start to withhold content for their own channels only and exclude other's content, then yes, that would be a clear signal of major changes as a result of the rise of the streamers.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Horizon

On this occasion, the three channels being axed (and there maybe more to follow) is the result of the CBS/Viacom merger and Comcast's takeover of Sky. There are just too many channels.

However, if a pattern starts to emerge here that media companies start to withhold content for their own channels only and exclude other's content, then yes, that would be a clear signal of major changes as a result of the rise of the streamers.

When Sky acquired the Flextech group of channels they reduced the total number of channels. It didn't herald the end of television as we know it then, I doubt this will now.

[Horizon]

The streamers didn't exist then.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Horizon

The streamers didn't exist then.

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.

[OLD BOY]

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.

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.

[Media Boy UK]

Disney pulls shows from Sky as it prepares for UK streaming debut

Disney + will launch in UK and Ireland on March 31st 2020.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...treaming-debut

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Media Boy

Disney pulls shows from Sky as it prepares for UK streaming debut

Disney + will launch in UK and Ireland on March 31st 2020.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...treaming-debut

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.

[Media Boy UK]

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.

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

[jfman]

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.

I can show that the television market can support hundreds of channels despite millions of homes already having Netflix/Prime etc.

You cannot, logically, claim there will be a “long decline” on the basis of any observable evidence at all. More streamers = more competition for Netflix/Amazon and it’s not yet proven what the market will sustain. You continue with the flawed assumption that households will pay for these services regardless of quality. I don’t think every major studio necessarily has a product people want to buy.

[muppetman11]

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.

Put it another way how much is Sky spending annually on third party content ?

It's strategy is clearly to develop more and more of its own content hence the recent studio announcement and with the money saved and Comcast's money behind it I'd expect it to go down that route should it not renew third party deals.

[Chad]

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.

I think Freeview / Freesat will be fine. It seems like pay TV providers like SKY are the ones who are going to be impacted most by multiple streaming services launching. Premium content (the stuff people are prepared to pay extra for) isn't really what Freeview / Freesat are all about.

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.

Well they won’t, will they.

Sky and Disney both operate pay tv services that carry first run and other premium and/or exclusive content. Naturally Sky is under threat if content creators like Disney are no longer willing to sell that sort of material to them. But then that’s why Sky is investing in UK based production facilities. It knows it has to get into the business of making quality programmes rather than simply having the will and the means to buy exclusive rights to stuff.

I don’t know whether you’ve noticed but, largely because of Sky’s strategy over the last 25 years, BBC and ITV do not rely on expensive American imports for their prime time content any more. They make most of their own content, while smaller channels that run on shoestring budgets mostly broadcast old, low-value content of the sort that Disney and others aren’t going to be in any hurry to lock behind a paywall.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Well they won’t, will they.

Sky and Disney both operate pay tv services that carry first run and other premium and/or exclusive content. Naturally Sky is under threat if content creators like Disney are no longer willing to sell that sort of material to them. But then that’s why Sky is investing in UK based production facilities. It knows it has to get into the business of making quality programmes rather than simply having the will and the means to buy exclusive rights to stuff.

I don’t know whether you’ve noticed but, largely because of Sky’s strategy over the last 25 years, BBC and ITV do not rely on expensive American imports for their prime time content any more. They make most of their own content, while smaller channels that run on shoestring budgets mostly broadcast old, low-value content of the sort that Disney and others aren’t going to be in any hurry to lock behind a paywall.

Yes, although Sky will have to do a lot more to remain a must-have service as the number of streamers increase.

You are also right about fewer US imports being relied upon for BBC and ITV, both of whom have improved on their own originals in recent years, in quantity as well as quality.

ButbI do think that the smaller channels will be struggling to fill their schedules with anything people are going to want to tune into, leading to loss of audience share and advertising revenue.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, although Sky will have to do a lot more to remain a must-have service as the number of streamers increase.

You are also right about fewer US imports being relied upon for BBC and ITV, both of whom have improved on their own originals in recent years, in quantity as well as quality.

ButbI do think that the smaller channels will be struggling to fill their schedules with anything people are going to want to tune into, leading to loss of audience share and advertising revenue.

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I can show that the television market can support hundreds of channels despite millions of homes already having Netflix/Prime etc.

You cannot, logically, claim there will be a “long decline” on the basis of any observable evidence at all. More streamers = more competition for Netflix/Amazon and it’s not yet proven what the market will sustain. You continue with the flawed assumption that households will pay for these services regardless of quality. I don’t think every major studio necessarily has a product people want to buy.

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.