VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

If you lose the rose tinted spectacles for a bit, you'll see that while you are right, people don't usually watch two things at once, they can. There is also a lot of time when people don't currently watch anything that thanks to widespread 3 and 4g adoption, they can. For instance, my journey to work is between 40 minutes and one hour. As I commute via train, I don't have to worry about anything more than being at the right place at the right time, so I have two hours a day I can do what I want on my mobile. Often, this includes watching video. Often video I have stored on the device, but I do sometimes fire up Netflix and watch something. This is two hours a day when I would likely not be watching a linear channel anyway. Plus, not being able to drive, I have to get public transport when I go out socially. This can mean a good hour of time as well.

In short, people don't necessarily have to cut down their viewing of linear channels to fit in streaming.

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.

As long as I find a programme that is interesting, I personally don't care where it comes from. Linear channel or streaming service. I've bought up practical reasons why streaming is not for everyone and while there is some effort to solve these problems, they aren't going to be solved quickly whatever the government says.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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

That's because your assumptions about the trend are faulty. You're assuming the increase in VOD use and decrease in broadcast use are 1/ causally related and 2/ will continue ad infinitum, or at least until one kills the other.

The history of innovations in entertainment consistently shows that newer options find their place in the mix but do not eliminate the others. Your failure to acknowledge this simple truth is the reason why your predictions are shaky to say the least.

A parallel could be with CDs and downloads...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7cc252e-b...#axzz448aVJi5Q

[Stuart]

Or going back further, Vinyl.. http://www.theguardian.com/music/201...erritory-album

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by 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

Come, come now OB. No-one else has been trying to convince me, just yoiur goodself. I don't doubt more people are watching more streaming, but as I have said that will be largely down to youngsters probably not having tv's at home anymore. It has also been well documented that linear TV is in very good health at the minute. You are also right, that I don't think linear TV will be dead in 20 years. My posts will never address your "fact" (I thought it was just a premise of yours?) because, again, I don't believe linear will be dead in 20 years. I am not sure why it seems you are so desperate to agree with you?

With regards the questions I have asked of you, if you do not know the answers as to how the future will look, why have you been trying to convince me, and others, for such a long time? It seems now you have no more answers to the questions I posed on your theories, you just want to tell me it's impossible to predict how it will all work. I trust this means we won't hear anymore theories from you, and you will just continue to stick to your premise?

I have never refused to believe that companies will not let people flit in and out of the streaming services, I just don't think it will be a viable way to fund a TV channel without ad's. Every company needs guaranteed money, and if it does not come from ad's or guaranteed monthly income, where will it come from? Yes, Now TV let's people do this, but they have a substantial big brother to support them. Their big brother ties people into annual contracts and fights tooth and nail to keep customers by offering deals when out of contratc, thus contracting people again and keeping the income flooding in.

With regards netflix, I don't think Netflix will still be available at an acsessable and affordable price in 20 years, without ads. I know CEO says they won't take ad's, but I just don't see it. They too, allow people to drop out at any time, because they are still growing and can afford too. In 20 years time I have now doubt they will be nearing saturation point in terms of subscribers. When this happens, they will need to ensure they keep this income to continue to keep the service at the level it will be operating at by then. I don't now how that will happen without contracts.

Equally, you are right, you never know who might come out in the future and bring game changing ideas, perhaps, just perhaps that will work for linear TV (not that it will be needed.)

I have never denied streaming won't be popular, it is a great addition to pay TV currently, but it won't kill off linear TV in 20 years time. Too many streaming service will simply become too expensive and if that happens, people will just go back to Sky or VM. Also, Sky will do their utmost to stop the streaming services launching, like they have done with showtime. As you said previously, wholesale deals are great for everyone, so if Sky keep paying HBO a wholesale fee which is more than HBO could get from launching HBO GO, why would HBO change it? Also as it stands over here currently, they get money from Sky, plus money from sales on Amazon and dvds. I think they would lose income if they launched HBO GO here.

Also, you fail to realize a number of people can not afford any pay TV and more simply don't care for pay tv and are happy with freeview. I have asked before why these people should be denied a basic TV right, but again, you had no substantial answer for me.

Lol, you are changing the use of this thread again. Last post you wanted to use this to discuss how linear TV will survive with less viewership, now you want to use it to post links and info on how the way we watch tv in future may or may not change. What exactly do you want to talk about? Your original premise, or either of your two new thoughts?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

The history of innovations in entertainment consistently shows that newer options find their place in the mix but do not eliminate the others. Your failure to acknowledge this simple truth is the reason why your predictions are shaky to say the least.

I think Blockbuster, Our Price, Virgin Megastores, cassette players, laser discs, and VHS may all disagree with you on this point.

You're missing the point.

Newspapers - cinema - radio - TV - Internet.

All of these deliver news and entertainment. All of them have had their product offering modified by later, competing innovations (news and documentaries are very rare in cinema now). However none of them has vanished. They have adapted and survived.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think Blockbuster, Our Price, Virgin Megastores, cassette players, laser discs, and VHS may all disagree with you on this point.

Virgin Megastores are alive and kicking in the Middle East - there's a huge Virgin Megastore in the Dubai Mall.

[denphone]

And VHS players can be bought online so they have not disappeared either.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by denphone

And VHS players can be bought online so they have not disappeared either.

And I hear that sales are going through the roof... maybe not

Sorry Den, couldn't resist.

---------- Post added at 16:47 ---------- Previous post was at 16:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Newspapers .

It certainly will be interesting to see what happens with newspapers.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6953016.html

The Independent is becoming global, digital – and profitable.

Six years ago my family bought one of the greatest titles in the history of media. It was, however, losing £25m per year. And every day its audience was just over 100,000 readers in print, and under half a million readers online. A lot has changed. We created a new newspaper, i – defying expectation and expensive advice – and invested heavily in our digital products.

'i' sales will be something to keep an eye on (no pun intended). Although I don't read one, I hope they survive for a very long time. But like many things, it will come down to cost and demand.

And on a non serious note, when I was young, vinyl was all there was; so these vinyl fanboys are welcome to go back to the days of LPs, which no matter how carefully you handled them, inevitably ended up with some 'clicks and pops' when you played them. Who'd have thought that music with extra 'clicks and pops' would have commanded a higher price?

Not sure if the Indy is/was one of the greatest titles in the history of media - I liked it as a newspaper, especially when it was first launched, but it's only been going for 30 years, so there's a lot of longer running high quality newspapers that, imho, are better - The Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Economist, the Rolling Stone magazine, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Wall Street Journal, and the FT, and that's just English Language newspapers/magazines.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

And VHS players can be bought online so they have not disappeared either.

Christ, we are clutching at straws now, Den! I mean, really...VHS?!!!

[denphone]

We have quite a few old VHS video gems at home old boy so there.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

You're missing the point.

Newspapers - cinema - radio - TV - Internet.

All of these deliver news and entertainment. All of them have had their product offering modified by later, competing innovations (news and documentaries are very rare in cinema now). However none of them has vanished. They have adapted and survived.

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.

[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.