Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Newspapers are not a good example, Chris. The sale of printed newspapers are declining badly and won't be around in years to come. They will be available only on the Internet in time, just as broadcast channels will survive only on the Internet players before long.
|
Well, the Mirror group decided to launch a new paper just a few weeks ago. Clearly they see a market still, to counter the decline of sales from the mirror. Also, Metro and "freemium" papers/mags do pretty well. "I" also survived the chop from the Independent. Papers will survive for years, simply because the Internet will force adverts on people, much like the Mirror have started doing. You can't read an article online from the Mirror without watching an ad now. I rarely look at their articles, but some Stephen Avery stuff (the chap from Making of A Murderer on Netflix - I seriously recommend adding to the top of your list) has cropped up on the Mirror, and the only way I could read it, was by watching an ad. I found the news from a different provider.
Oh, any chance you fancy explaining your comments on broadcast channels? as far as I know, internet players stream linear content and have vod.
---------- Post added at 22:59 ---------- Previous post was at 22:48 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone
There will always be newspapers my dear chap because as you might not have realised yet and that is not everybody wants to read their content online plus there are millions who also don't have any access to the online world and never will and thus buy newspapers.
A good example is my Mum as she likes to buy her daily papers everyday even though she knows she can read it all online.
|
Gotta agree Den, staff rooms/canteens are full of newspapers. Pubs and hotels will always have them for customers and it's much easier to read a printed paper than an online version, because a printed paper won't hamper anyone's reading due to the internet connection slowing down or dropping out. Also, it's much nicer on a weekend to share the various supplements out, and you can fall asleep reading a paper, with worrying about losing battery power on your tablet. Equally, it is much less frustrating filling in puzzles on a sheet fo paper than it is online. Ultimately, papers will just become freemium products, laden with ad's before they disappear.
Just to add another dimension to the CD, Vinyl, digital debate, books shops are still thriving even though e-readers are still prolific. I can only base this statement on the number of shops in Cambridge, Ely and St. Ives. There is a section for e-readers in book shops these days, so, in my mind books still lead the market, and e-readers compliment nicely. Much like my Kindle lays uncharged and unused currently, but it is there if I need it!!
---------- Post added at 23:10 ---------- Previous post was at 22:59 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
The latest views expressed by the CEO of Netflix Reed Hastings, which clarifies some of the budget and advertising questions that have been debated in this thread.
Interesting that he does not want a direct fight with the TV broadcasters but he fails to see that the more viewers turn to streaming services, the less they will be watching traditional channels, leading to a downward spiral in their advertising revenue.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...rst-global-tv/
Over the last year, the company’s international audience has been the biggest driver of user growth – more than 35 pc of subscribers are currently non-US, and the percentage is going up. In 2015, it brought in $6.7bn in revenue, with a slim net profit of $122m – less than half of net profits in 2014.
Netflix’s big bet for the future of internet TV is pure storytelling – in 2016, it will reportedly spend $5bn on content, compared to HBO’s $2bn budget, launching 31 new and returning original series, two dozen original feature films and documentaries, stand-up comedy specials, and 30 kids' series.
(CEO Reed Hastings) seems unperturbed by critics’ concerns about Netflix’s rising costs, responding facetiously: “We have been profitable every quarter for 15 years. So the plan is the same for the last 15 years, grow a little bit every quarter.”
Upon being pressed further, he allows: “You improve the service, it gets more members, a bigger budget and we use that to get more content and do more R&D. That’s the virtuous cycle we have been on for the last 15 years. We are only 75m members still – relative to the global footprint of the internet that is small.”
Meanwhile, it beat its own expectations of international growth, adding 4m new users outside the US. If it can genuinely become the world’s preferred internet TV network, its subscription revenue will eventually subsidise its spending spree.
Hastings insists they will never rely on advertisements as a business model, and have no interest in doing live television like sports or news. So why bother arm-wrestling TV networks?
---------- Post added at 13:07 ---------- Previous post was at 13:06 ----------
I just find the subject so interesting, old chap! |
BIB, clearly he does see the same future you do, and he owns the blooming company. How much more indication do you need that your premise is unlikely to come true?