VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[vincerooney]

Originally Posted by Horizon

Talking of younguns, I had a look at the kids section of Netflix today, never looked at it before. It's immense, hundereds of hours of stuff. Mostly cartoons, but some dramas too.

I think the first casualties in the pay tv world will be in the kids tv channels. Why would kids bother watching the cartoon network showing cartoons they might not like when they can select exactly what they want on Netflix?

what i find astonishing is the BBC didnt axe the kids channels and bbc 4 but went for bbc 3 instead.

kids tv shows could be put on iplayer for parents to monitor and choose for their kids. since "little sammy" would just sit in front of the tv anyway. bbc 4 is pretty much bbc 2. Put kids tv "live" shows on bbc 2 from 3-5.15. All the remaining bbc 4 shows on bbc 2 since theyre fairly identical anyway.

BBC 3 is watched by the next generation of license fee payers. Youve taken away their chanel and p*ssed them off by keeping bbc2 and bbc4 aka the same channels and same age group.

it was such a bad decision!

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

BBC 3 is watched by the next generation of license fee payers. Youve taken away their chanel and p*ssed them off by keeping bbc2 and bbc4 aka the same channels and same age group.

BBC 2 is not the same as BCC 4. The BBC 3 viewers are of the generation that tends to stream anyway.

It's a shame any channel has to be on-line only, but given the situation, BBC 3 was the right choice.

The BBC itself said if it had had the choice, it wouldn't have experimented with an online-only channel for another 10 years. Given that its hand was forced, BBC3 was the best choice. It always was the channel with the thinnest public service justification, as the 18-35 audience is extremely well catered for elsewhere*. BBC3's audience can also go off and stream stuff without adult supervision. If you're going to run a grand experiment, why would you make it more complicated than it needs to be by choosing a kids channel that would require parental involvement?

* BBC management's first attempt to close BBC Choice and replace it with BBC3 was rejected by the BBC Trust, because the Trust said management had not demonstrated the public service value of what they were proposing. Management had to go away, redraw their plans and then try a lot harder to convince the Trust it was necessary and worthwhile. BBC Four, meanwhile, had no such problems and was up and running some while before Three.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

The BBC itself said if it had had the choice, it wouldn't have experimented with an online-only channel for another 10 years. Given that its hand was forced, BBC3 was the best choice. It always was the channel with the thinnest public service justification, as the 18-35 audience is extremely well catered for elsewhere*. BBC3's audience can also go off and stream stuff without adult supervision. If you're going to run a grand experiment, why would you make it more complicated than it needs to be by choosing a kids channel that would require parental involvement?

* BBC management's first attempt to close BBC Choice and replace it with BBC3 was rejected by the BBC Trust, because the Trust said management had not demonstrated the public service value of what they were proposing. Management had to go away, redraw their plans and then try a lot harder to convince the Trust it was necessary and worthwhile. BBC Four, meanwhile, had no such problems and was up and running some while before Three.

It was yes, IIRC they got BBC3 passed by including news in a format accessible to young people ie Sixty Second Countdown.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But kids grow up, Chris, and what do you think they will do when they settle down to their TVs and find that they are hide bound by schedules and flooded with adverts?

I rest my case!

But with growing up don`t they also mature and realize that some things are different?

They do. They also start having kids of their own, and then realise that a pre-schooler doesn't need favourites, reminders or box sets. To the extent that young kids should be sat in front of a TV at all, a simple, linear schedule broadcast, for example, by the CBeebies channel, is more than adequate. Better, in fact, than a Netflix-like service, because the BBC's kids schedules are constructed with an eye on achieving a balance between crazy entertainment and useful knowledge and personal development.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

They do. They also start having kids of their own, and then realise that a pre-schooler doesn't need favourites, reminders or box sets. To the extent that young kids should be sat in front of a TV at all, a simple, linear schedule broadcast, for example, by the CBeebies channel, is more than adequate. Better, in fact, than a Netflix-like service, because the BBC's kids schedules are constructed with an eye on achieving a balance between crazy entertainment and useful knowledge and personal development.

Our grandkids get bored with the scheduled telly. They tend to watch recordings, on demand, Netflix and Amazon.

As far as newly matured adults who are settling down are concerned, I think I will be proved correct when I say they will be bored by pre-scheduled programming constantly interrupted by adverts.

I would like to think that the new generation of viewers are not so mindless and lazy that they just want to turn on the box and watch any old junk that is thrown at them. Most will be used to watching stuff when it's convenient to them, and they expect to watch it instantly.

---------- Post added at 12:38 ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 ----------

Originally Posted by telegramsam

But with growing up don`t they also mature and realize that some things are different?

So they just give up and accept linear TV when all those alternatives are available?

I don't think so, and that's not my experience. My God, even some retired friends of ours who baulked at Internet shopping only a few years ago are into Netflix on TV.

The advent of smart TVs will only hasten this process.

[denphone]

Hmmmm nice to be called mindless and lazy.....

[passingbat]

In my view, kids of today, who are used to streaming content, when they get older and have their own homes, will simply flit between streaming and linear channels, using both as naturally as the each other.

The current older generation have been brought up on linear TV only. Some are perfectly content with things as they've always been (and there's nothing wrong with being content). Others are apprehensive because they are worried that it may be too complicated.

This won't be an issue for the kids of today and they'll use the best of both TV worlds. I think they will be less likely to take out long term high price pay TV contracts though and just use the free linear channels and streaming services.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

In my view, kids of today, who are used to streaming content, when they get older and have their own homes, will simply flit between streaming and linear channels, using both as naturally as the each other.

The current older generation have been brought up on linear TV only. Some are perfectly content with things as they've always been (and there's nothing wrong with being content). Others are apprehensive because they are worried that it may be too complicated.

This won't be an issue for the kids of today and they'll use the best of both TV worlds. I think they will be less likely to take out long term high price pay TV contracts though and just use the free linear channels and streaming services.

I agree with this assessment, PB. Unfortunately, I think the linear broadcast channels will not be able to sustain their financial viability with the reduction of audience share that this implies.

---------- Post added at 13:38 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Hmmmm nice to be called mindless and lazy.....

I was referring to the younger generation, Den. It's perfectly acceptable for those of our generation to be a lot more relaxed and contented!

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I agree with this assessment, PB. Unfortunately, I think the linear broadcast channels will not be able to sustain their financial viability with the reduction of audience share that this implies.

At the moment, linear TV channels still get first run TV rights to TV drama. Amazon and Netflix have been entering into that field for a couple of years now, but it is a small proportion of those going to linear TV channels. Also it is mainly content from US cable channels, not primetime network TV. These still mainly go to linear channels.

Until that changes, linear channels will still have their draw.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I agree with this assessment, PB. Unfortunately, I think the linear broadcast channels will not be able to sustain their financial viability with the reduction of audience share that this implies.

---------- Post added at 13:38 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------


I was referring to the younger generation, Den. It's perfectly acceptable for those of our generation to be a lot more relaxed and contented!

That fine OB as look l have nothing against streaming as yes we do very much watch quite a bit of linear TV but later this year when our contract ends we will probably get a Now TV box as the two channels we want are on there so we will have less on our package so we can add that as a nice little add on for our entertainment.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

That fine OB as look l have nothing against streaming as yes we do very much watch quite a bit of linear TV but later this year when our contract ends we will probably get a Now TV box as the two channels we want are on there so we will have less on our package so we can add that as a nice little add on for our entertainment.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

At the moment, linear TV channels still get first run TV rights to TV drama. Amazon and Netflix have been entering into that field for a couple of years now, but it is a small proportion of those going to linear TV channels. Also it is mainly content from US cable channels, not primetime network TV. These still mainly go to linear channels.

Until that changes, linear channels will still have their draw.

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.

[1andrew1]

Interesting report on Andrew Neill's speech for SES. He says he has changed his opinion and the so-called insurgents are not as disruptive as he previously believed. “Netflix is not the great disrupter and TV will not die in 2030 as is the claim of Netflix CEO Reed Hastings.” "Neil said there was pain at the margins for broadcasters, but Netflix was starting to struggle in the United States. “It’s not a disrupter, it’s a network.”
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2016/...tv-golden-age/

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Look at how Game of Thrones draws people to Sky Atlantic.

Which would be a linear TV channel ...