Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35775585)

Harry, I posted that article to indicate how some industry experts were thinking about this, which does not necessarily mean that I agree with the views expressed. I have not said anywhere that broadcast channels will disappear in the short or medium term. It is the longer term that we are discussing, and honestly, I really cannot see how the existing model will survive unless innovative ways of generating sufficient (alternative) income streams are found.

Yes, if the worst came to the worst, we could have all the existing broadcasters providing their programmes via their own streaming services, but they know that people aren't going to subscribe to them all, and this will restrict the number of people watching. So they are more likely to sell their programmes on to the likes of Netflix or Amazon, so you could end up saving money rather than spending more.

There is a fault in your argument about people recording the TV programmes from linear TV rather than watch OD filled with commercials. If everyone did that, why would the advertisers place their ads with the TV stations in the first place?

There are sufficient people still religiously watching advertisements at the present time for this not to be a problem. However, I have outlined in this thread why I don't believe that this comfortable situation will continue.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35775585)

Harry, I posted that article to indicate how some industry experts were thinking about this, which does not necessarily mean that I agree with the views expressed. I have not said anywhere that broadcast channels will disappear in the short or medium term. It is the longer term that we are discussing, and honestly, I really cannot see how the existing model will survive unless innovative ways of generating sufficient (alternative) income streams are found.

Well, they are clearly still generating enough money now. I genuinely fail to see how this is going to change in 10 years time.

Yes, if the worst came to the worst, we could have all the existing broadcasters providing their programmes via their own streaming services, but they know that people aren't going to subscribe to them all, and this will restrict the number of people watching. So they are more likely to sell their programmes on to the likes of Netflix or Amazon, so you could end up saving money rather than spending more.

Surely if broadcasters know not everyone would watch their on demand content, (and they could in theory lose money seeings as you think the consumer could save money) why would they risk changing the formula they have now? Also, they already sell their content to Amazon and Netflix, so how is that going to generate any additional revenue in 10 years time, compared to the revenue they have now???

There is a fault in your argument about people recording the TV programmes from linear TV rather than watch OD filled with commercials. If everyone did that, why would the advertisers place their ads with the TV stations in the first place?

It's not really a fault. How many people skip the internet ads as soon as they get a chance? Why would advertisers allow us to that now if its such a big issue on linear TV?

There are sufficient people still religiously watching advertisements at the present time for this not to be a problem. However, I have outlined in this thread why I don't believe that this comfortable situation will continue.

I may well be being incredibly obtuse, but you have not done enough to convince me yet why things will change I am afraid, OB.

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute (Post 35777862)

didnt want to continue in the coming soon but have seen this which might light the torch paper of views

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32733044

Broadcaster ITV has posted positive results for the start of the year, beating expectations.

The broadcaster, which airs popular drama Downton Abbey, said it had seen 14% growth in net revenue for the three months ending March 2015.

Total revenue was £665m, up from £585m during the same period last year.

Broadcast and online revenue was also up by 10%, to £530m, along with the studios division, which saw revenue increase by 17%.

Adam Crozier, ITV chief executive, said: "We've had a strong start to the year with further growth across all parts of the business

so fall in advertising might be premature to say the least

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35777868)

All good, positive news. However, take a look at the link below. Audience figures are down, and although that may be for the reasons given in this article, don't forget that this thread is about the long term trend rather than the present.

http://advanced-television.com/2015/...audience-down/

ITV ad revenues up, audience down

Commercial broadcaster ITV has posted 14 per cent growth in net revenue for the three months ending March 2015. Total revenue was £665 million, up from £585 million during the same period last year.

Broadcast and online revenue was also up by 10 per cent, to £530 million, along with the studios division, which saw revenue increase by 17 per cent.

The ITV network suffered a 3 per cent drop in its audience share and a 6 per cent drop on its main channel after a string of factual and entertainment flops. The broadcaster faces a tough challenge to turn around its declining audiences as it loses its rights to Champions League football at the beginning of next season, and with its most popular drama, Downton Abbey, coming to an end after the next series.

Adam Crozier, ITV chief executive, commented: “We’ve had a strong start to the year with further growth across all parts of the business. In April we completed the acquisition of Talpa Media, the creator of entertainment formats including The Voice, The Voice Kids, Utopia and Dating in the Dark, which marked an important step forward in our strategy of building a world-class production and distribution business.”

ITV’s results came out as staff staged a 24-hour strike to coincide with the company’s annual meeting. Unions have rejected a 2 per cent pay rise, saying they should get a higher increase in view of the TV company’s profits.

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35777919)

Viewers may be down, but poor shows are poor shows OB. They are not going to be any better if they are shown on a on demand/streaming service.

If this whole argument of yours is about the long term, why did you highlight the recent Sky Movies on demand quote in another thread?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35777928)

Because, as I see it, this is the beginning of the end for linear TV. The decline in audience share for ITV might be due to them being of poorer quality, or maybe it isn't that at all.

Time, I guess, will tell.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35777928)

Because, as I see it, this is the beginning of the end for linear TV. The decline in audience share for ITV might be due to them being of poorer quality, or maybe it isn't that at all.

Time, I guess, will tell.

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35777950)

Yes, I get that. But, like Anypermittedroutes post, you are using events in the present to base your thoughts of what might happen in the future too. So why challenge anypermittedroute for doing the same as you?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35777960)

If the statistic under consideration is audience share, the that is a relative measure which shows how ITV is performing against other linear channels. It does not tell us anything about the total audience size for linear TV at any given time.

As you have frequently done in this thread, you are drawing conclusions that are not warranted by the information you are quoting.