VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

One Pass could technically be added to the current Tivo, as it was added to the US Tivo Premier

It would be a good addition, and completely in line with what the Tivo was designed for.

[harry_hitch]

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

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.

Well, you do make me laugh, Harry! You pull every word I say apart in the most pedantic fashion and expect me to justify absolutely everything I say, and yet you make these sweeping statements such as the 'fact' that Netflix will have to take commercials, completely ignoring the fact that they've said they will not. It is difficult to have a sensible conversation when one side feels they can say whatever they like and ignore the contrary evidence and expects the other party to detail their views to the umpteenth amount of detail.

I agree, let's leave the Netflix issue aside, people can make their own judgement about whether to believe you or believe the company's stated position.

Concentrating on your last 3 paragraphs as you suggest, you seem to think I've 'changed ' my original point. I don't know what you mean by that because I have been consistent in my views on this throughout, although of course arguments and discussions can develop any theme.

I note that you seem to be saying that if linear TV broadcasters find their audience share declining, they will simply charge more for selling their original content to the streaming services. Well, that's tough luck for the likes of Gold, Dave, Syfy, W, Alibi and countless others who produce precious little if any of their own material. Even ITV has channels, such as ITV 2,3, and 4 that survive on repeats and imported material. Clearly, your (unreported) figures do not add up. Many, many linear channels would have to close if that was the only way to make up the increasing shortfall in revenue that I suggest will start to be noticeable in the medium term. If that's the best solution you have, I rest my case.

You may or may not be right about costs of streaming services in the future, but even if you are right and people will get less for their buck, this will not stop it from happening for the reasons I have stated many times. The only way linear channels can possibly survive in the long term is if they come up with something completely new which stops them haemorraging viewers. I cannot think what this would be, and therefore my conclusion is that they will die out eventually, with the smaller ones dying out first.

Once again, you ask me how the cost of streaming services will be structured, how they will be packaged, etc. How am I supposed to answer that? It's up to the satellite and cable providers to work that out and negotiate the best deals. Don't forget that wholesale deals guarantee income, which is a valuable mechanism that suits both parties, enabling the satellite/cable company to make a profit. Why do you see streaming services as so different from channels? The same principles apply, it's just that there will be rather less of them.

I have already sent you a link on the streaming services available in the US and what the various options would cost, but you chose to ignore this and complain that the article was about cord cutting! Simply look at those charges and use the dollars to pounds calculator and that will give you a pretty good idea. However, don't forget that there will be many additional options available including pay per view sites and those forcing ads down your throat at no extra cost.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, you do make me laugh, Harry! You pull every word I say apart in the most pedantic fashion and expect me to justify absolutely everything I say, and yet you make these sweeping statements such as the 'fact' that Netflix will have to take commercials, completely ignoring the fact that they've said they will not. It is difficult to have a sensible conversation when one side feels they can say whatever they like and ignore the contrary evidence and expects the other party to detail their views to the umpteenth amount of detail.

I agree, let's leave the Netflix issue aside, people can make their own judgement about whether to believe you or believe the company's stated position.

Concentrating on your last 3 paragraphs as you suggest, you seem to think I've 'changed ' my original point. I don't know what you mean by that because I have been consistent in my views on this throughout, although of course arguments and discussions can develop any theme.

I note that you seem to be saying that if linear TV broadcasters find their audience share declining, they will simply charge more for selling their original content to the streaming services. Well, that's tough luck for the likes of Gold, Dave, Syfy, W, Alibi and countless others who produce precious little if any of their own material. Even ITV has channels, such as ITV 2,3, and 4 that survive on repeats and imported material. Clearly, your (unreported) figures do not add up. Many, many linear channels would have to close if that was the only way to make up the increasing shortfall in revenue that I suggest will start to be noticeable in the medium term. If that's the best solution you have, I rest my case.

You may or may not be right about costs of streaming services in the future, but even if you are right and people will get less for their buck, this will not stop it from happening for the reasons I have stated many times. The only way linear channels can possibly survive in the long term is if they come up with something completely new which stops them haemorraging viewers. I cannot think what this would be, and therefore my conclusion is that they will die out eventually, with the smaller ones dying out first.

Once again, you ask me how the cost of streaming services will be structured, how they will be packaged, etc. How am I supposed to answer that? It's up to the satellite and cable providers to work that out and negotiate the best deals. Don't forget that wholesale deals guarantee income, which is a valuable mechanism that suits both parties, enabling the satellite/cable company to make a profit. Why do you see streaming services as so different from channels? The same principles apply, it's just that there will be rather less of them.

I have already sent you a link on the streaming services available in the US and what the various options would cost, but you chose to ignore this and complain that the article was about cord cutting! Simply look at those charges and use the dollars to pounds calculator and that will give you a pretty good idea. However, don't forget that there will be many additional options available including pay per view sites and those forcing ads down your throat at no extra cost.

Ha, glad I can make you laugh OB. I do pull a lot of your stuff apart, but that is because, in my eyes, it can be pulled apart. You have been very open with all of your thoughts, thankfully, as they encourage debate (this thread is good to pass the time when the missus is not about) but ultimately, you have never been able to back up your statements and thoughts when questioned.

Not sure I make sweeping statements, yes I think all streaming services will take ad money eventually, I have never claimed it as fact. Not sure how that is a sweeping statement though, even if it is one, it is only a single statement. I have never denied that I can back up my statement on ad's and Netflix, even when you have asked. In my eyes, it is the only way it can stay financially viable in 20 years time. History also tells us that pay TV stations need ads, so I don't see why streaming services won't need them in the future. Ultimately, I don't care if people believe me or not, it's what I think.

I have never asked for the umpteenth detail. You have replied with detail to many of my responses to your posts, but you have not been able to explain to me rudimentary costs of worldwide exclusives, how the streaming services will work and rudimentary figures for how much they will cost. I have given many rudimentary costs in the past, but for some reason you choose not to give me rudimentary costs back, I can only think it is because you know the figures won't stack up. You have told me three different ways on how you think streaming services could work, and have changed your thoughts when I have challenged you. Unfortunately I still disagree that people will be able to flit in and out of a bundled streaming service form Sky VM, etc, it is not financially viable. If it is a viable option, why don't sky, vm operate like that now?

So, you have given me lots of detail, but have failed to convince me on any costs and how it will work. If I am after the "umpteenth detail", it is because you have made statements that do not stand up to basic scrutiny.

With regards your link (where have I complained it is about cord cutting? cord cutting came up a few posts ago and you say this thread is not about cord cutting. I still say it is, or at least was, until you changed your mind a couple of weeks ago and said Sky bundling services is the best option), I responded some time ago to another link and the totals of about 5 or 6 of the best streaming services would cost about £50.

The cost's on your link are scarier. I would ask how much you think Sky would charge to sell those services as a bundle, but I know you won't give an answer.

Where have I said I streaming services are different to channels? They offer a great option for people, as do wholesale deals. I am happy streaming services are available, but they will not kill off linear tv as you think.

I doubt the UKTV channels will suffer too much, they are part owned by the BBC and I can't see the BBC or Scripps letting their channels die too quickly, when they could pass any theoretical extra costs to Netflix for the rights old series. A few of their channels air on freeview too, and in the case of UKTV channels only, they could always release more channels on freeview to gain extra ad revenue, if the Sky ad revenue drops. Freeview, will of course, continue to operate for many years to come. I have no doubt some channels on sky will struggle, but there is no way linear tv will die in 20 years. That is the I solution I will give, and unlike you, I will stick to it. Feel free to pull it apart even more if you wish, but it is not going to matter as linear tv will not be dead in 20 years.

[OLD BOY]

I've come to the conclusion, Harry, that no-one is actually going to convince you that viewer habits are changing and that there will come the day when the linear broadcast model ceases to be viable. Your posts do not address this fact but instead seem to be requiring me to state in infinite detail how the streaming services will be funded, what streaming services there will be, whether subscriptions will be for a month or a year at a time, etc. No-one can 'know' the answers to these questions because different events lead to different initiatives by providers and so to predict future events with the degree of precision you require is not possible. Then additionally you get entrepreneurs from out of nowhere who come up with game changing ideas.

Linear broadcast channels have served us well but new digital technologies will ultimately take over completely. It's not a question of if, but when. Despite your comments about 'changing my mind' my views on this have been consistent.

Chris is adamant that there are too many obstacles to the changes I have suggested on here, despite the fact that the experts are working to resolve problems such as the energy limitations that he has described. He does not believe that in 20 years' time the rest of the country will have access to high speed broadband despite this being the Government's objective in less than half that time.

I have entertained the questions you have put to me, but that does not necessarily mean that I agree with the scenarios you have put forward. You have resolutely refused to accept that Netflix will not take commercials, despite the company's CEO saying that they will not do this, you refuse to accept that streaming companies will let their viewers flit in and out of their offerings despite the fact that Now TV do this already, and so on.

So whatever I say will never convince you, old chap! However, in the near future, even you will see the way this is going, and I expect there will be plenty of hat eating going on in your household!

Let's use this thread to post links and information about how the way we watch TV may or may not change in the future. We can all then form our own views about the way this is all going.

---------- Post added at 17:36 ---------- Previous post was at 17:07 ----------

Here is an exciting development relating to a new streaming service.

http://www.rapidtvnews.com/201603254...#axzz43w7bErFS

[Stuart]

I wouldn't place too much stock in the Government's promises of "high speed" broadband everywhere in the country in 10 years.. The government doesn't have a great record when it comes to IT projects being delivered on time and on budget, and this is likely to be the largest project they've ever handled. While it isn't a government IT project as such (in that they will not be running the project or infrastructure), they are funding it, which means the likes of BT will be rubbing their hands waiting to get hold of the cash and deliver the minimum they can. Maybe I sound cynical, but I don't have much confidence in the way the government deals with contractors.

Regarding the comments of the Netflix CEO, what CEOs say can change. Yes, under certain circumstances, they can get in trouble with the authorities if what they say is later proved untrue. So, what tends to happen is that what the CEO says is vetted by the company lawyers before it is said, or if that can't happen, they issue a press release to clear up any confusion, and that press release is..

Now, on to the comment itself. Reed Hastings (Netflixs CEO) said "No advertising coming onto Netflix. Period.
Just adding relevant cool trailers for other Netflix content you are likely to love." . Sounds very definite, doesn't it? I'm fairly certain that had they left it there, that statement would have committed Netflix to never having advertising (although I am not a lawyer)..

So, they clarified.. They released a statement stating "We are not planning to test or implement advertising on the Netflix service. For some time, we've teased Netflix originals with short trailers after a member finishes watching a show. Some members in a limited test now are seeing teases before a show begins. We test hundreds of potential improvements to the service every year. Many never extend beyond that.". Note the phrase "We are not planning to test or implement advertising". It's not the same as "No advertising coming on to Netflix". It implies that they may test and may implement advertising at some point in the future, but have no plans to do so at the moment.

Note: I am not saying for sure whether they will or won't. I don't know. I personally believe they will eventually, whether they do so voluntarily or are forced. After all, they need to keep improving profits for shareholders and as competition increases, that may be difficult to do on subscriptions alone. I am saying that when the CEO said they would not, they backtracked slightly and are now hedging their bets.

Regarding Ultraflix, their service looks interesting, but bear in mind they are charging rental fees per film rather than a subscription, so it may actually work out a *lot* more expensive than other services.

Also, they proudly boast that their encoding is done with the help of "experts" at 4KStudios. I looked them up. Their website only states that they worked on several blockbuster movies. In my experience, most companies who work on any big movies (even blockbusters), tend to proudly boast what movies they've worked on. Some even include screenshots or clips showing their work. 4kstudios does neither. The only expert I can find they have hired is the guy who did the despecialized editions of Star Wars. While he did an excellent job on those, I can't find any evidence of him doing anything else in the entertainment industry (which is extremely odd).

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Stuart

I wouldn't place too much stock in the Government's promises of "high speed" broadband everywhere in the country in 10 years.. The government doesn't have a great record when it comes to IT projects being delivered on time and on budget, and this is likely to be the largest project they've ever handled. While it isn't a government IT project as such (in that they will not be running the project or infrastructure), they are funding it, which means the likes of BT will be rubbing their hands waiting to get hold of the cash and deliver the minimum they can. Maybe I sound cynical, but I don't have much confidence in the way the government deals with contractors.

Regarding the comments of the Netflix CEO, what CEOs say can change. Yes, under certain circumstances, they can get in trouble with the authorities if what they say is later proved untrue. So, what tends to happen is that what the CEO says is vetted by the company lawyers before it is said, or if that can't happen, they issue a press release to clear up any confusion, and that press release is..

Now, on to the comment itself. Reed Hastings (Netflixs CEO) said "No advertising coming onto Netflix. Period.
Just adding relevant cool trailers for other Netflix content you are likely to love." . Sounds very definite, doesn't it? I'm fairly certain that had they left it there, that statement would have committed Netflix to never having advertising (although I am not a lawyer)..

So, they clarified.. They released a statement stating "We are not planning to test or implement advertising on the Netflix service. For some time, we've teased Netflix originals with short trailers after a member finishes watching a show. Some members in a limited test now are seeing teases before a show begins. We test hundreds of potential improvements to the service every year. Many never extend beyond that.". Note the phrase "We are not planning to test or implement advertising". It's not the same as "No advertising coming on to Netflix". It implies that they may test and may implement advertising at some point in the future, but have no plans to do so at the moment.

Note: I am not saying for sure whether they will or won't. I don't know. I personally believe they will eventually, whether they do so voluntarily or are forced. After all, they need to keep improving profits for shareholders and as competition increases, that may be difficult to do on subscriptions alone. I am saying that when the CEO said they would not, they backtracked slightly and are now hedging their bets.

Regarding Ultraflix, their service looks interesting, but bear in mind they are charging rental fees per film rather than a subscription, so it may actually work out a *lot* more expensive than other services.

Also, they proudly boast that their encoding is done with the help of "experts" at 4KStudios. I looked them up. Their website only states that they worked on several blockbuster movies. In my experience, most companies who work on any big movies (even blockbusters), tend to proudly boast what movies they've worked on. Some even include screenshots or clips showing their work. 4kstudios does neither. The only expert I can find they have hired is the guy who did the despecialized editions of Star Wars. While he did an excellent job on those, I can't find any evidence of him doing anything else in the entertainment industry (which is extremely odd).

The Government certainly don't have a good record when it comes to contractual arrangements with the private sector and I agree that it would be surprising if the BT contract went smoothly. However, it should be sorted within the next 10 years. I expect there may still be small pockets in remote areas who may not be covered, but broadband via satellite would be an option for them.

I agree that in time, Netflix could conceivably change its mind over advertising, but one can't base a whole argument about the future of streaming services on that supposition when the company itself says the opposite. A huge attraction to the Netflix model is the absence of advertisements and there would be a huge blowback from subscribers if Netflix tried to force commercials down everyone's throats. As I said to Harry, the only way I can see Netflix introducing commercials is as an alternative offer at a lower price, or free with a more limited menu. However, the current position of Netflix is that they will not seek to add commercials to their service.

There are those people who will pay more to watch Ultraflix on a PPV basis, but I am not one of them. I watch the occasional film on Virgin Movies, but that's it.

[OLD BOY]

Nearly half of Americans subscribe to streaming video services

http://www.digitaltveurope.net/51812...-now-use-svod/

The trend towards streaming videos continues apace in the US, and where they go we will almost certainly follow. As more people become used to 'instant viewing' without commercials, video streaming will become the norm, putting increasing pressure on the linear broadcast TV channels.

Some 46% of Americans now subscribe to streaming video services, with millennials aged 14-25 spending more time streaming than watching live TV, according to Deloitte.

The professional services firm’s tenth ‘Digital Democracy Survey’ claims that more than half of all consumers and three-quarters of millennials watch movies and TV shows via streaming on at least once a month.

Millennials aged 26-32 who currently pay for streaming video have an average of three subscriptions and those aged 14-25 said they value their streaming video subscriptions more than pay TV subscriptions.

“The proliferation of online content shows no signs of slowing down and the consumer appetite to consume content is equally voracious,” said Deloitte vice chairman and US media and entertainment sector leader, Gerald Belson.

“The survey data indicates that consumers are more willing than ever to invest in services to watch whenever, wherever and on whatever device they choose.”

[denphone]

You must be on good commission extolling the values of all these streaming services old boy.

[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 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

You must be on good commission extolling the values of all these streaming services old boy.

I just find the subject so interesting, old chap!

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by denphone

You must be on good commission extolling the values of all these streaming services old boy.

Thing is Den, streaming is growing; you can't get away from that fact.

Also, peoples' desire for watching whole seasons, add-free, is also growing.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Thing is Den, streaming is growing; you can't get away from that fact.

Also, peoples' desire for watching whole seasons, add-free, is also growing.

L have never disputed that it is a growing platform PB but for some to suggest that it will be the death of linear TV well that's extremely fanciable thinking in my humble opinion.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

L have never disputed that it is a growing platform PB but for some to suggest that it will be the death of linear TV well that's extremely fanciable thinking in my humble opinion.

Well, Den, while viewers are watching streaming videos, they can't be watching broadcast TV, can they, and that is the whole argument. Once the balance tips too far towards SVOD, advertising revenue will decline, leading to cheaper programmes, widening the gap in quality and hastening the decline.

It is a shame, I know the existing balance is what some wish to retain, but the writing is on the wall, I am afraid. Maybe a solution will be found, but frankly I doubt it. I certainly can't think of one, can you, Den? Serious question.

[denphone]

You can't think of one my dear chap because you have those old rose tinted glasses on up there in your ivory tower again.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

You can't think of one my dear chap because you have those old rose tinted glasses on up there in your ivory tower again.

In fact, I haven't heard of a single idea that would reverse or even slow down the trend away from broadcast TV.

Even our conventional broadcasters are having to embrace the new way of doing things in the digital world.


http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...eaming-service