Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
My argument is based on the simple premise of a shift of linear TV viewers to a streaming preference and the impact of this on the broadcast TV channels. Why is this so difficult to understand, when ITV came so close to collapse when advertising started to decline a few years ago?
You are taking what I have said in this thread out of context on many occasions. This time, you are saying that I have changed my mind about advertisements on streaming services - no I haven't! I said from the start that Netflix have confirmed that they will not take advertising on their service. You said they would have no choice, but this is ridiculous! The whole point of streaming services is that they provide a way of watching what you want, when you want, free of advertisements. My 'conceding' that adverts might appear on Netflix in the future was simply in answer to your persistent view that ads would indeed appear on Netflix. My view is this will only happen if they decided to attract an even bigger audience via a completely different option that included ads, such as happens on the ITV Hub, All4, etc. That doesn't mean I agree that ads will appear on Netflix. I simply suggest that this might be a way of getting even more money for the company, but you need to understand that this does not form part of their business plan.
You say I keep changing my mind, but you are wrong. Sometimes someone may come up with an argument which deserves taking seriously and I don't discount those arguments, but my view of things remains the same. You may have forgotten that in my post 29 in January 2015, I clearly stated:
'Linear TV may survive, I agree, but I think new ways of watching TV will become prevalent over time and the way we view now will seem pretty primitive.
The main issue will be how these programmes are funded in the future.
To be clear, the discussion I am inviting is how the funding issue is going to work on the commercial broadcast channels when they face increasing competition from streaming services. That is the issue, but you have studiously avoided confronting this problem. Maybe there is an answer, but if so I don't know what it is. Only the BBC would not have that particular problem, but ultimately with more people watching their programmes via alternative means, they will be faced with a decision about whether they can justify the higher costs of broadcasting in this way.
Picking up on various points you have made this time around, I have not mentioned Netflix being a 'best option'. I am merely saying that they have many programmes on there that appeal to me and it will take me an age to get through them, while additional original series keep being added. I accept that maybe Netflix is not your cup of tea, but there will be other streaming services popping up that may appeal more to you over time.
This thread is not about cord cutting, but that is not to say that cord cutting may not result. I have said before that if Virgin Media and Sky embrace the change that is coming, they could offer bundles of streaming services in the same way as they currently offer bundles of channels. So that isn't cord cutting, is it? The link I gave you contained a list of steaming services available in the US that I thought would be useful in helping you to understand how streaming services would start to develop in earnest over here. You did ask, after all! 
I have explained why your issue about 'the maths' is irrelevant. Everyone knows that when you purchase in bulk, you get it cheaper. I'm not going to compile a spreadsheet for you to prove this, Harry, I'm sorry, I have a life!
My figure of £11 for Netflix I think is pretty accurate and it is based on what I think the existing choices on Netflix will cost us in a few short years. The price has already increased to £8.99 for new subscribers, so we are already half way there. The more basic package I was talking about would be cheaper than this (or as you seem to think, even free with ads, although I stress this is not what I think will happen).
As for people drifting in and out of streaming services as they wish, yes, I think most of the streaming providers will allow this. Now TV does it now; in fact your subscription isn't even renewed at the end of the period unless you actively renew it. Only Amazon has so far insisted on annual subscriptions and I see no moves anywhere to follow their example.
I hope this answers your questions, Harry, but please - I am not changing my mind at all! I could just sit here and say that all your assumptions are wrong, but I try and engage in a sensible debate. This thread is all about what might happen when broadcast TV audiences decline. I'm not trying to brainwash you at all. I am more interested in how the broadcasters will deal with it.
There have been remarkably few responses to that central question. |
Thank you for ignoring how Netflix will market their cheap tier.
Your answers are still unsatisfactory. I don't recall making many, if any assumptions. My posts have challenged a number of your assumptions, and you have come back with many, many different assumptions.
I am really fed up with your constant denial that you have changed your mind. This whole thread is testament to the fact you have.
I won't discuss Netflix with you anymore, simply because you think they won't ever take ad's. Even though you admit you think they could well accept ad's for cheaper subscription tiers in future so they can boost their business in future - via the use of ad's - that would be a shrewd move by Netflix though.
Please stop saying I don't like Netflix, I have said numerous occasions I do.
You simply don't seem to grasp Netflix does not have as strong a pull towards me as it does you, even though it is a good service as it stands.
Equally, I never said Netflix will be free with ad's. I have never said they will introduce different tiers, that is all your suggestion.
No amount of streaming services will appear to me, because it will always be cheaper for me to use linear TV. I will reuse to pay companies more than I do now for the option to watch what ever shows I want to watch on sky.
I don't ever recall asking for a spreadsheet. I knocked up some rudimentary numbers in one paragraph a few posts ago, based on Netflix doubling their viewership, for the cost of one show. Please give me a single paragraph with rudimentary numbers on how much you think one show and one film will cost to pay for, considering the cost involved for making the show and film. If you want to disregard my comments, prove me wrong.
With regards your "new" discussion (changed from your original point), people will still be watching linear tv in 20 years. The revenue will still come from ad money and content owners charging Netflix/Amazon higher cost's for back seasons of shows, if viewership declines. That's my answer. Feel free to discuss that. If Netflix etc becomes too big a threat, they could, effectively, be destroyed as a threat very quickly.
I invite you to discuss how streaming services will destroy linear TV, when the costs involved to customers will be higher than they are now. Also, how will it structured? Will it be bundled by Sky, and people can leave when they want? If so, where does the the guaranteed income come from? You may recall we have had this discussion before, but you choose to ignore my previous comments and want to discuss this again.
Lets leave the other stuff we have chatted about above alone, we are going in circles. Let's just concentrate on the last three paragraphs and tell me the monthly costs involved of streaming services, and how they will survive with out ad's and ow subscriptions.