VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[OLD BOY]

]

Originally Posted by Chris

Which would be a linear TV channel ...

I know, Chris, I referred to it myself!

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That's the thing, Den. Once you've got it you wonder how you managed without it, and that gets you thinking...!


---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------

I don't disagree, and I think this will remain the case for at least the next two or three years.

Don't forget that Netflix are planning to put out many more Netflix originals and there will be a growing demand to watch this material. Look at how Game of Thrones draws people to Sky Atlantic. If Netflix or Amazon were to stumble upon something like this that captured the public imagination, it would be the start of the trend towards 'must have' streaming services.

Will reply to your other post when I have a bit more time OB, but (bib) are you suggesting that linear channels will begin to die in the next 2-3 years then OB, or have I mis-read your statement?

Also, I know how I live with a Now TV box. It is called a Sky+ box and a decent deal.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Will reply to your other post when I have a bit more time OB, but (bib) are you suggesting that linear channels will begin to die in the next 2-3 years then OB, or have I mis-read your statement?

Also, I know how I live with a Now TV box. It is called a Sky+ box and a decent deal.

It's difficult to say, Harry. It depends not only on the take up of streaming services in the short term but also the economic situation. However, I would have thought the broadcast channels are safe for at least three years, yes. By the end of the decade, I think we will see a marked decline in quality of programming on those channels that are still operating. In 20, I believe they may all have ceased to exist.

Obviously, this is all speculative, and assumes that rabbits are not pulled out of hats to the extent that broadcast channels are reprieved, but I really can't see that happening. The way I see it, the economics just don't add up when you look at the way things are going. I can't think of anything that would lead to linear channels surviving 20 years.

[denphone]

If unsure repeat and repeat and repeat until one has been brainwashed in believing the unbelievable.

Originally Posted by denphone

If unsure repeat and repeat and repeat until one has been brainwashed in believing the unbelievable.

Could you repeat that? 😆

---------- Post added at 22:57 ---------- Previous post was at 22:56 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Obviously, this is all speculative, .

The most useful thing you've said in this entire thread ...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Could you repeat that? 😆

---------- Post added at 22:57 ---------- Previous post was at 22:56 ----------



The most useful thing you've said in this entire thread ...

I've never said anything else, Chris. That doesn't mean it won't happen, though!

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I've never said anything else, Chris. That doesn't mean it won't happen, though!

Totally agree.........

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I am really surprised that you cannot find much on Amazon or Netflix that interests you, Harry, because there is so much on there. Sky's non premium channels don't even come close to what either of the main streaming services have to offer. Incidentally, Netflix is planning 55 more original new series this year, so it just gets better and better!

You have asked me to 'make up my mind on streaming services' and whether people will flit from one streaming service to another, etc. I'm not sure how you expect me to know the answer to that as I can't predict precisely what services will be available in the future, let alone which services they will prefer. However, at a guess, I would imagine that there will be a range of behaviours by viewers. Some will want to maximise their viewing experience by flitting about, some will tend to be loyal to one or two providers and of course there will always be those who want it all (like me, tee hee!).

Incidentally, I don't know why you are saying that I've changed my mind. The only reason I mentioned annual subscriptions is that you asked me a specific question, and I answered it. I have no idea if annual subscriptions will ever become the norm, but existing channel providers do seem to prefer to lock you in. At the moment of course, there are a range of practices, ranging from annual subscriptions (Amazon) to a much more flexible monthly pass approach (such as Now TV).

I would like to see Sky and cable companies offering packages of discounted subscription services (much the same as we have bundles of channels now). Whether that will happen, who knows? There's not much evidence of that yet, but it may come. Alternatively, we may have to subscribe separately as we currently have to do with Netflix.

I do believe that HBO will eventually launch over here. I think they stand to make more money by making their shows available to a wider audience. In all likelihood, this will be on a pay per view basis (unfortunately).

I have no figures worked out, Harry, but you don't need to be a maths expert to work out that you will get a bigger discount for the content if you are a global rather than a national player. The more you buy, the less you pay per unit. That's how these wholesale deals work.

As for the 'ripping off audiences' comment, I really don't get that. If a less wide ranging selection of programming can be provided at a cheaper price for those who can't afford, or don't want to pay for everything, how is that a rip off? Sky and VM have different bundles of channels now, from M to XL. Is that a rip off?

As for shows being lost, that will only happen during the exclusivity period, by and large. Eventually, everything tends to have more general availability after a while - this maximises income generation.

Harry, other posters have been putting up links to articles that make it pretty clear that these changes are coming. I don't understand why you cannot see this, but I have concluded that you won't believe it until it happens for real. So I guess I will have a bit of a wait before I hear you say: "Geez! You was right"!

I've already worked out that I'll probably be dead by then!

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:45 ----------

http://advanced-television.com/2016/...-svod-service/

The BBC has held talks with rivals including ITV about launching a Netflix-style video SVoD streaming service.

The talks, which are also said to have involved NBC Universal, focus on the potential to develop a subscription TV service. The service would major on providing archive TV content from the broadcasters rather than the first-run of shows, although there would be a certain amount of original commissions.

I find enough stuff to watch on Netflix OB, as I have stated many times before. Amazon just does not appeal to me. They do have some stuff I would watch, but I will pay them per episode for something I would not fully own, I would rather buy the bluray. The trouble I have is, like many linear tv channels, they are also choc full of old shows. As I have also stated before, I don't care how many shows Netflix are releasing, it is the quality of them that matters. I have this about the quality of shows on SA before too. Let's not quibble about this though, again it is personal preference.

You have changed your mind frequently though. If you are not sure what will happen, we can stop our discussion on this and leave that you think linear TV will be dead in 20 years, and I don't. Equally, if you speculate what you think will happen, anyone has the right to challenge your thought process. It is for you to convince me how streaming services will work, and how it will work as well as it does for everyone now.

Surely, if Sky offer bundles, people are not cutting the cord. People will still be paying high monthly subscriptions to a company. Lets say there are 10 streaming services on Sky (is that a fair number) all in full HD/4k at the low, low price of £2.99 per service, that is still £29.90 a month. Pretty much what people pay now, so how will that work for cord cutting?

Again, how will HBO make more money, and why will they change their business model? Their content is already available PPV, the day after the seasons end on Sky. I believe they have already stated they make more money from Sky than they could through a streaming service.

I am no maths expert, but I still figured out some figures ad hoc as I wrote, and they were expensive costs. Please take the time to figure out the costs for worldwide exclusive rights for the number of films and tv shows, from all the different movie studios and content providers. I am genuinely interested to see how much you think this will cost.

You missed my point on the ripping off. The price VM etc charge their customers for the lower package, covers the cost for that package alone. M customers, do not pay for Fox etc, so there is no profit for VM from Fox etc for those customers on M package. You said Netflix will gain more profit to pay for more content by getting customers to take out lower packages. The customers on lower packages will not contribute to the cost of new content, because they are not paying to watch that content. The only way Netflix will make money for the new content off of the lower price tier, is to put the prices up with out those customers getting any extra content. Much like VM have done recently, and look at the comments about it on here.

No-one, myself included, have denied changes will happen. I simply don't think linear TV will be dead in 20 years.

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:36 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

If unsure repeat and repeat and repeat until one has been brainwashed in believing the unbelievable.

Indeed that is the case den, I await the next step of attempted brainwashing.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Sky's non premium channels don't even come close to what either of the main streaming services have to offer. Incidentally, Netflix is planning 55 more original new series this year, so it just gets better and better!

Why do you keep banging on to Harry about Sky's non premium channels.

Harry's Sky subscription offers him far more than just those channels for instance National Geographic , Discovery , History , W , Alibi , Gold , Fox , Comedy Central , SyFy , Universal , Eden and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

All the broadcasters available on pay tv combined put far more new content out than the streaming services you list.

[passingbat]

OLD BOY may get a little bit excited by this

TV is changing to be more like Netflix

Read the full article first.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-...16-3?r=UK&IR=T

It all comes down to networks realizing that streaming video has become one of broadcast television's biggest threats, and potentially its salvation, said Dave Morgan, chief executive of Simulmedia, a New York-based ad tech firm

"If they don't get viewership, they don't get paid," he said

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

OLD BOY may get a little bit excited by this

TV is changing to be more like Netflix

Read the full article first.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-...16-3?r=UK&IR=T

[denphone]

Don't get too tipsy there old boy as you might not wake up in the morning.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by passingbat

OLD BOY may get a little bit excited by this

TV is changing to be more like Netflix

Read the full article first.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-...16-3?r=UK&IR=T

Cheers PB, nice bit of advertising for the ad company that paid for the study, highlighting future plans for the advertising industry. I am sure they will get a few customers knocking on their about the plans highlighted in the statement.

(This is not aimed directly at you, more a generic statement) One of the biggest issues that will still happen it if TV goes VOD is the cost with streaming though, in my eyes. If the VOD providers get no money from ad's, where do they get it from?

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

If the VOD providers get no money from ad's, where do they get it from?

They will get it from ads. VOD is an advertiser's dream. You know exactly who is watching and their interests, so can target advertising specifically to them. In theory you could even personalise the ads.

At the moment the amount of VOD advertising is limited because ad-insertion is technically difficult to do, but there's a big incentive to overcome those difficulties.

[muppetman11]

Sky already does ads on its VOD and its content partners do , when watching Discovery catch up you are presented with several advertisements during the shows.