VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[johnathome]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The DVDs I have bought recently do not have ads ('Game of Thrones' and 'Boardwalk Empire' do not have ads that I have to sit through at all).

Don't they have a load of anti-piracy crap that you have to watch at the beginning that isn't skippable? That's as bad as blooming adverts.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by johnathome

Don't they have a load of anti-piracy crap that you have to watch at the beginning that isn't skippable? That's as bad as blooming adverts.

And the irony is, people who illegally download the film, don't have to sit through all that.

[steveh]

79% of Netflix subscribers in a poll would rather pay more than have ads: http://exstreamist.com/poll-79-of-ne...-than-see-ads/

[Anypermitedroute]

Interesting poll, a few highlights for me

"In contrast though, 54% of subscribers said they would actually be ok with third party advertisements if it meant Netflix could significantly increase their content library."

But to be fair to the opposite polar of the argument some people comments were

“The sole reason I switched to Netflix was to cut-out the ads. This is their unique selling point, and to start including ads devalues the concept.”

“I would rather pay more for a subscription. It is such a pleasure to watch a program with no ads.”

it seems this debate sees people in two very distinct camps:
1) pay more get more no ads
2) get ads get more

It's an interesting issue in its own right. Netflix clearly has a fine balance to achieve, but as of right now I do think that their limited subscriber base means they would not make much ad revenue, and therefore it is mor valuable to them to pitch at the ad-free market.

I don't think it is relevant to the issue of the future of linear TV in any way, shape or form. There is nowhere in the world where the entire TV landscape is locked behind voluntary subscription, because the market for free to air, ad-funded TV is too great. Subscription services, especially Internet-delivered ones like Netflix, will always be niche.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

It's an interesting issue in its own right. Netflix clearly has a fine balance to achieve, but as of right now I do think that their limited subscriber base means they would not make much ad revenue, and therefore it is mor valuable to them to pitch at the ad-free market.

I don't think it is relevant to the issue of the future of linear TV in any way, shape or form. There is nowhere in the world where the entire TV landscape is locked behind voluntary subscription, because the market for free to air, ad-funded TV is too great. Subscription services, especially Internet-delivered ones like Netflix, will always be niche.

Netflix has nearly 5m subscribers in the UK alone. They have far more viewings that Sky Atlantic! So your point about not being able to achieve much ad revenue does not appear to be correct.

The reason I have pointed to the frailty of linear TV is simply that other non-advertising options and the increasing popularity of on demand TV will draw people away from commercial TV. So of course there is a correlation and a point to my argument.

Your view merely seems to suggest that it won't happen, and you are relying heavily on your theory that advertising will come to Netflix (despite them saying it won't), the fact that you personally would rather watch linear TV (which is not going to influence anything) and your concerns for the poor advertisers (who will find another way to promote their products if existing methods dry up).

It is true that other developments may save linear TV. So if all other platforms became flooded with ads, that would ensure linear TV's survival. However, I can't see that happening, which is why I have concluded as I have.

On the contrary, you have concluded as you have because you find VOD to be so wonderful, you're having a hard time believing anyone else could possibly not share your joy. You're a marketeer's dream - a product evangelist. Good on you, if you like it, it works for you and the price is right. All my arguments in this thread, however, boil down to one simple concept: not everybody agrees with you. In fact, so many people don't, that the existing, efficient and (licence fee excepted) free at point of use broadcast system we currently enjoy, is not going to be closing down at any point in the foreseeable future.

To be perfectly frank, I don't care whether Netflix takes adverts or not. It is a side issue that is simply not relevant to the issue of linear TV. I happen to think that simple economics will eventually dictate the decision for them, but if in 10 years they're still cheerfully ad-free, so what? Good for you, as it seems to matter to you, not in any way important to me because the BBC, ITV, C4, C5 and a good number of FTA 'digital' channels will all still be there, and I will continue to consume TV entertainment as I now do, when it's convenient, without much thought or planning, at the end of another busy day at work.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Netflix has nearly 5m subscribers in the UK alone. They have far more viewings that Sky Atlantic! So your point about not being able to achieve much ad revenue does not appear to be correct.

The reason I have pointed to the frailty of linear TV is simply that other non-advertising options and the increasing popularity of on demand TV will draw people away from commercial TV. So of course there is a correlation and a point to my argument.

Your view merely seems to suggest that it won't happen, and you are relying heavily on your theory that advertising will come to Netflix (despite them saying it won't), the fact that you personally would rather watch linear TV (which is not going to influence anything) and your concerns for the poor advertisers (who will find another way to promote their products if existing methods dry up).

It is true that other developments may save linear TV. So if all other platforms became flooded with ads, that would ensure linear TV's survival. However, I can't see that happening, which is why I have concluded as I have.

Goodness me OB. Firstly, where are your stats for the viewing figures of Netflix and how many people have access to Atlantic? Genuinely interested in Netflix viewing figures.

Secondly, if on demand is becoming more popular, how much of it is through original content and how much of it is through people sticking on old shows when nothing else is available? All that has changed with OD content is that people don't have to go through the hassle of putting in a dvd, when there is nothing else on. I dread to think how many times I have turned linear TV on, found nothing worth watching and stuck a film on. People have been doing that for 30 years as well, with no problems arising for linear TV. Don't forget Sky will always have on demand content and BT can always afford to throw money at OD content to boost their linear TV offering.

Thirdly, your posts are just your views as well. I don't recall anyone ever having concerns for advertisers either. It's you who keeps telling us they will lose a massive platform to broadcast on in 10 years. Equally, Your views are relying heavily on the fact advertising on Netflix etc will never happen and that you prefer On Demand content (which is not going to influence anything). Oh, where else are companies going to place ads if they will not be on linear TV or On Demand, Netflix etc? The Internet? Radio? Newspapers? Magazines? Big advertising Hoardings? Phone apps and games? Cinema? Nope, these are all ready in use, so where is next place for them to go?

I can see ads going on to on demand, Netflix etc, so that is why I have concluded as I have too.

[harry_hitch]

OB, I am not sure whether it happens on other shows (and it certainly has not happened on the first 4 series) but having started on the 5th season of The Wire today, I have found that Sky have lumped two or three adverts on to the start of the show. Thankfully I can skip them, but ads have started on Sky on demand. I guess it's only a matter of time before there are more ads on more shows!

[OLD BOY]

This article confirms the growing use of video streaming to watch programmes, but confirms that broadcast TV viewing is still holding up well at the present time.

http://advanced-television.com/2015/...now-streaming/

Extract

TV Share of Clock – the first of four studies in GfK MRI’s new The Future of TV series – shows that more than a quarter (28 per cent) of all TV viewing is now done via digital streaming. Accessing subscription or free online platforms via a computer or mobile device accounts for 16 per cent of time spent with TV content; online streaming through a traditional TV set makes up another 9 per cent; and 3 per cent comes from other methods for accessing content, such as portable game consoles.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Netflix has nearly 5m subscribers in the UK alone. They have far more viewings that Sky Atlantic! So your point about not being able to achieve much ad revenue does not appear to be correct.

You are comparing apples and oranges. The fact that Netflix has nearly 5m subscribers in the UK does NOT mean that they all watch Netflix regularly, if at all. The figures published for Sky Atlantic are an educated estimate of how many people have watched the channel in a given period. if you are going to bring number of subscribers into it, perhaps you ought to remember that every Sky subscriber has access to Sky Atlantic and there are over 10 million Sky subscribers (http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...oadband-now-tv) and that figure may or may not include subscribers that access Sky via cable.

The only way we could make a fair comparison is for Netflix to publish actual viewing figures, but I don't think that will come until Netflix start carrying adverts (and even with the subscription, I believe it's a case of when, not if) and the advertisers demand actual viewing figures.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Stuart

You are comparing apples and oranges. The fact that Netflix has nearly 5m subscribers in the UK does NOT mean that they all watch Netflix regularly, if at all. The figures published for Sky Atlantic are an educated estimate of how many people have watched the channel in a given period. if you are going to bring number of subscribers into it, perhaps you ought to remember that every Sky subscriber has access to Sky Atlantic and there are over 10 million Sky subscribers (http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...oadband-now-tv) and that figure may or may not include subscribers that access Sky via cable.

The only way we could make a fair comparison is for Netflix to publish actual viewing figures, but I don't think that will come until Netflix start carrying adverts (and even with the subscription, I believe it's a case of when, not if) and the advertisers demand actual viewing figures.

The thing is, all subscribers who can access Sky Atlantic have choices of many other channels as well. Quite a few of those subscribers may never, or perhaps only occasionally, view programmes on Sky Atlantic.

However, people wouldn't subscribe to Netflix if they weren't going to view anything on it, would they?

[muppetman11]

I'm pretty sure many Netflix subscribers have the same option from other sources for instant freeview , pay tv and other On Demand services , unless your suggesting the average Netflix punter has no access to Freeview or other services.

Edit , Don't you have a full pay TV service and Netflix ?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The thing is, all subscribers who can access Sky Atlantic have choices of many other channels as well. Quite a few of those subscribers may never, or perhaps only occasionally, view programmes on Sky Atlantic.

However, people wouldn't subscribe to Netflix if they weren't going to view anything on it, would they?

You've illustrated another reason why the subscriber numbers are irrelevant. I'm well aware that not everyone who has access to Sky Atlantic watches it regularly (if at all). The same applies to Netflix. I, for example, watch it a few times a month, but mainly for old shows and films, and if Netflix published actual viewing figures rather than subscriber numbers, that may be reflected.

As for your question, I suspect that most people wouldn't subscribe to Netflix if they didn't think they'd get any use, but some people do sign up on behalf of their kids, who probably wouldn't be watching Sky Atlantic.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Stuart

You've illustrated another reason why the subscriber numbers are irrelevant. I'm well aware that not everyone who has access to Sky Atlantic watches it regularly (if at all). The same applies to Netflix. I, for example, watch it a few times a month, but mainly for old show and films, and if Netflix published actual viewing figures rather than subscriber numbers, that may be reflected.

As for your question, I suspect that most people wouldn't subscribe to Netflix if they didn't think they'd get any use, but some people do sign up on behalf of their kids, who probably wouldn't be watching Sky Atlantic.

The point I was making was that those who subscribe to Netflix do so because they (or their family) want to watch it.

Whereas, those who subscribe to Sky do not necessarily do so for the purpose of watching Sky Atlantic.