VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by Chris

The BBC is a major international broadcaster and employs more people than any other broadcaster anywhere in the world. That's 20,000 full time staff, in a business with revenue of more than £5 billion (more than £1bn of which comes from worldwide commercial operations, not the licence fee).

The one thing you can be absolutely certain of, is that nobody is going to get 'rid' of it, and no Government of any colour would get away with forcing a funding model onto it that would be guaranteed to destroy its audience.

I think you're allowing your dislike of the licence fee to cloud your judgment just a little.

I didn't say I disliked the licence fee, its probably the most efficient way to fund the BBC. I just said its not illegal for the BBC to go down a subscription model, should the Government decide to do so. And no, I don't think that is a reality any time soon.

But your argument about them being a world broadcaster, with huge revenues and employing masses of staff could also be used as an argument for privatising them.

If they're so good, let them stand on their own two feet and seek out other means of funding. I'm not saying this is necessarily my view, but I wouldn't rule it out.

I note you call them a business.... of course they're not, but perhaps they should be??

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

1st paragraph. Netflix can't survive on £8.99 a month though. You yourself said in your last post to me they keep putting the price up for new customers. LOL, It was you who also said less well off people will flit between streaming services, now you are saying this will be stopped by streaming services charging an annual fee! Where exactly do you stand on this point now? Will it, in your opinion be, a monthly service people can drop monthly, or will it be an annual fee?
If it is an annual fee how much will it be? £100-£120? Lets assume there will be streaming services plus Amazon, Netflix and Now TV. I hope 5 sounds fair. How can a poor family afford to spare £500-£600 a year, on the 5 streaming services (so they can have all the variety) on top of Amazon, Netflix, Now TV and the license fee?

2nd paragraph. I am afraid I don't understand your sentence. Again, how will the subscription be paid? We have been over the pay per views stuff before. How much will cost someone to watch (for example) 3 shows that come on daily on a week night. (Let's forget about the weekend shows for now, and all the other shows.) That's 5 episodes a week 4 weeks a month. That's 20 episodes a month, per show. That equates to £10.00 per show a month. £30 a month to watch just 3 shows on a daily basis, I don't see that taking off.

3rd paragraph. Are seriously saying has more content than the content Sky can offer? How many more actively current shows do the channels on Sky broadcast compared to Netflix? Don't get me wrong, Netflix is great at the minute, but Sky has a massive amount of box sets and the number of channels frequently have something on I can watch. It will be difficult to say definitively who has more content though. I am going to stick with Sky though.

4th paragraph. My point about amazon was it is simply subsidized by the money Amazon make off of their main business website, which has adverts. So Amazon, in my eyes, will use advertising to help keep the costs of their services down. I appreciate it does not currently interrupt your viewing schedule. BTW, do you pay for the pay-per-view shows and or films on Amazon Prime?

5th paragraph. As for Now TV, it's odd after all this time you think I don't know the difference between broadcast tv and on demand, why would you suddenly think so? Did you not read the part where I said there were ads on the catch up services from Sky?!? It's also odd how for many weeks you have never said that you use now tv solely for catch up purposes (in fact I am sure you have said many times you still use linear TV and don't want it to go) but since PB rightly challenged me on my wording a number of posts ago, it seems you have tried to take his argument on further, which you are entitled to do. If I was wrong to state it is linear based, you equally wrong to say it is on-demand based - it offers both services.

If you want to say people use it more for on demand, look at their website, under entertainment pass it states

Addictive new shows and award-winning dramas on 13 pay TV channels that you won’t find on Freeview.

Watch Live, Catch Up on missed episodes or watch over 250 Box Sets On Demand.

The wording of this tells me that the first service it's selling is live TV you won't get on freeview. It then says, you can watch it all live and then you can use the catch up feature to watch any shows that were on at the same time. I am guessing that is because you can't record on Now TV, happy to be corrected. You will also see on the little cinema ticket stub adverts, that they are highlighting the live tv broadcast times for shows first, and then telling you it is on catch up too. I fail to see where it states this is primarily an on demand service. Please tell me on the website where its wording is aiming for on demand above linear tv.

I am not denying people use it as an on demand service too, but the wording (in my eyes) suggests Sky want to sell it as live TV first and foremost. Again, fair play if you are not getting ads on your on demand stuff. The fee I pay Sky is more that you pay for Now tv, and yet I am getting ads on the catch up service. Not sure how long that will be before it trickles down to Now TV. Please don't say its because you pay a subscription, so does every one Sky.

6th paragraph. Does relate to anything I said. How are they going to fund hoovering up all these exclusives?

7th paragraph. Okay, lets say the BBC, Channel 4, Fox and Universal are all worried, and they pull all their content off Netflix including all their films. How do Netflix justify charging the same price for considerably less content? And how is attractive is Netflix then to customers?

As promised, my views on this are as follows.

Point 1. We all know, I think, that Netflix prices will increase somewhat from the present £8.99 as we get more and better content still in the future. I would expect that to increase to about £20 pm in real terms if they succeed in giving us the full works including studio deals allowing them to show first run films following the pay per view period (currently held by Sky).

Now, that would be a lot to pay for those who can barely afford the licence fee, and therefore to maximise income, Netflix may well structure their prices into tiers, allowing the present service to continue to be available for about £10 pm. Assuming that the licence fee becomes a subscription, this would be a good alternative to the terrestrials for cash strapped families. At £120 per month, this provides a cheaper alternative than the current licence fee. They would still get the free to air terrestrials, minus the BBC channels but plus Netflix. If they preferred, they could simply subscribe to Now TV and get access to the Sky channels at less than they pay now for the licence fee.

Flitting between streaming services no doubt would also take place. If, as I have speculated, Netflix and others decide to force subscribers into annual deals (as Amazon does now), those who can only afford one service will have the opportunity to change services at 12 monthly intervals. That would give less well off people a much better choice over time than they get now. What is not to like?

Point 2. I am not quite sure why you don't understand my paragraph. If it is the reasoning that you are questioning, I assume that the confusion is expressed in the questions that you ask under your second paragraph. My response to that is that I fail to see why you question how subscriptions would be paid.

There are plenty of streaming services operating by subscription currently, including pay per view (eg Google Play) and they don't have a problem collecting subscriptions. There are, however, certain difficulties with collecting BBC subscriptions given that the BBC channels are available via aerials and without a box. The Government is looking at that and believes that a technical solution will be available by the time the next review takes place. We haven't been told (to the best of my knowledge) what that solution will entail.

Pay per view viewing is indeed expensive and is only worthwhile when watching a limited number of programmes offered on this basis. Personally, I prefer paying by subscription.

Point 3. Yes, I am saying there is more content on Netflix than on Sky. It's better quality overall as well. There may be a lot of content on Sky's channels but a very high proportion is very dumbed down material which (in my view) should not be allowed as it is brain numbing to the extreme! Sorry, controversial comment there.

Point 4. Well, my comments about advertising have been related to commercials. I have no problem whatsoever with advertising banners on the sites themselves, I just don't want them to interrupt my viewing.

I do watch PPV programmes occasionally, but frankly my subscriptions pay for almost all of my pay TV viewing.

Point 5. Reading previous posts, I thought you had not actually seen Now TV, my apologies if I was wrong about that (there are too many posts to trawl through!). My point was that although there are advertisements on Now TV, they are only contained within the small linear broadcast TV section of that site (in other words, the same channels that you get on Sky TV). However, the streaming videos available on Now TV do not contain advertisements. I was certainly not questioning your understanding of what linear broadcast TV was!

I do not distinguish between 'catch up' and 'streaming videos' on Now TV. I would not regard the last few series of 'Aquarius' as 'catch up', which I would tend to regard as services enabling you to see programmes that were broadcast last week (now last month for most 'catch up' players). I guess you could regard all previously broadcast programmes as 'catch up', but I don't think that is a common interpretation.

For the record (I have said this before), my viewing is almost exclusively via my own recordings, Netflix, Now TV, Amazon and the various players. I hardly ever watch anything live - even the News is recorded for viewing when I am ready to watch it.

You are correct in saying you cannot record from Now TV. As to whether Now TV subscribers actually prefer live TV cluttered with commercials or the streaming videos of the same programmes and more on that platform I will leave to conjecture unless someone has the figures. Unless you love to waste your time with commercials, I would suggest that most people just choose the videos on there and watch them.

Sky may choose to promote the live TV because they make more advertising money from you the more you watch by that method, but frankly, given the choice before you when you get into Now TV, why would you choose to watch programmes that way? Incidentally, the 'catch up' part of the service is the same as any other 'catch up' service, but there are no ads on Now TV videos.

Point 6. I think you will see a growing tendency for the services with global reach buying up all the exclusives because they will simply outbid the national broadcasting companies with their bigger wallets. Sky are riding high at the moment and indeed they have recently secured a deal with Showtime. However, I think we are nearing an end to this era and things will be looking very different not that long from now. Only time will prove this to you.

Point 7. Yes, I am sure that these channels will be milking their exclusive content for all its worth before they release their shows to the global companies. However, they will ultimately sell them on to make even more money for those programmes. There are already signs that these channels are not only using their players for catch up, but also for displaying other programmes they have made or commissioned. For example, All 4 has three series of 'Indian Summers' on it, despite the fact that only series 1 has aired on Channel 4. It is possible that the channels could avoid selling on their programmes by substantially expanding their own sites and allowing them to be accessed globally.

Of course, the likes of BBC, Channel 4, Fox and Universal could decide to pull their content from the streaming providers if they wished to do so, but how do you think that would actually affect Netflix and Amazon, who get their programmes and films from a variety of sources and are now even making their own content?

I hope that this addresses all the points you have made, Harry. Let me know if you think there is anything I have missed.

---------- Post added at 12:10 ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

This is one of the most often-repeated pieces of nonsense about the BBC's future funding model.

There are four public service broadcasters in the UK*, and all of them are forbidden by law from hiding their PSB channels behind subscription. If ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 can fulfil their public service obligations based on advertising revenue, why do you imagine the BBC would be forced to do anything other than that, when and if the day comes that the licence fee is no longer considered tenable?

* six, technically, as STV and S4C have the PSB rights in channel positions 3 and 4 in Wales and Scotland, respectively

Laws can be changed, Chris. The Conservatives have not disguised their preference to force the BBC into a subscription based model.

Putting commercials onto the BBC will not be popular with the public but converting the licence fee into a subscription would address the complaints made by those who say they are forced to pay this fee even though they don't watch or listen to the BBC.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Laws can be changed, Chris. The Conservatives have not disguised their preference to force the BBC into a subscription based model.

Putting commercials onto the BBC will not be popular with the public but converting the licence fee into a subscription would address the complaints made by those who say they are forced to pay this fee even though they don't watch or listen to the BBC.

I think you'll find individual conservative MPs, speaking their own opinions, may have floated the idea. There is a vast difference between the opinions of individual MPs and party policy.

As usual, OB, you're having difficulty processing facts. The facts are:
1. Public service broadcasting, funded by commercials, is a long established precedent in the UK.
2. The most successful subscription-funded entertainment channel broadcaster in the UK (Sky) also has to run adverts to make ends meet. You can't use subscription as an alternative to advertising. You have to use both together.

Locking the BBC behind subscription would destroy it almost overnight because its entire operation is based on mass appeal and audience levels you simply can't get if you're behind a paywall. For that reason, it will never be the policy of any mainstream UK party, and even if it were, the legal challenges would go on for so long as to make it impossible to deliver.

You are of course free to speculate to your heart's content, but there is a qualitative difference between predicting future events based on past and current trends, and predicting the future as an exercise in wish fulfilment.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Putting commercials onto the BBC will not be popular with the public but converting the licence fee into a subscription would address the complaints made by those who say they are forced to pay this fee even though they don't watch or listen to the BBC.

And you still haven't answered my question from a few weeks back. How much would you be prepared to pay, in the extremely unlikely event, that it did go to the subscription model?

[denphone]

Well in my opinion it will never go to the subscription model but in the unlikely event if it did l think we would be talking about £15 a month at least PB and maybe more then that.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by denphone

Well in my opinion it will never go to the subscription model but in the unlikely event if it did l think we would be talking about £15 a month at least PB and maybe more then that.

I agree. However OLDBOY admits he uses BBC content. I just want to know how much he would be prepare to pay.

A price rise, and a fairly big one, would have to happen in the extremely unlikely event, it did go to subscription.

[muppetman11]

£180 a year to watch the BBC thanks but no thanks.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

£180 a year to watch the BBC thanks but no thanks.

And the price l stated per month is probably more near the bottom end of the scale.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

£180 a year to watch the BBC thanks but no thanks.

Which is why a subscription model is a nonsense.

Originally Posted by passingbat

Which is why a subscription model is a nonsense.

Exactly.

In truth it would have to be a lot higher than that, if the BBC were to try to maintain its current level of output and also avoid running adverts, because not everyone would subscribe.

Making the BBC a subscription service is an utterly brainless idea, touted by people who just can't get over the licence fee.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Exactly.

In truth it would have to be a lot higher than that, if the BBC were to try to maintain its current level of output and also avoid running adverts, because not everyone would subscribe.

Making the BBC a subscription service is an utterly brainless idea, touted by people who just can't get over the licence fee.

So you think it's perfectly fair to charge for a service that is not used? Strange logic.

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:54 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

And you still haven't answered my question from a few weeks back. How much would you be prepared to pay, in the extremely unlikely event, that it did go to the subscription model?

To be honest, I don't know. I guess it would depend on what was on offer.

---------- Post added at 20:00 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

I agree. However OLDBOY admits he uses BBC content. I just want to know how much he would be prepare to pay.

A price rise, and a fairly big one, would have to happen in the extremely unlikely event, it did go to subscription.

Well, there are those who say that most people would elect to keep watching the BBC. If that were the case, it is probably the case that the subscription would not have to be much more than it is now. They could probably keep the subscription very close to what it is now with some sensible savings.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So you think it's perfectly fair to charge for a service that is not used? Strange logic.

Pretty sure that every household must use at least one BBC service be it radio, internet or TV and the BBC World Service is designed to help everyone by influencing thinking in unfriendly countries and putting across a positive face of the UK. Plenty of other services that I pay for eg schools that I don't use.

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Pretty sure that every household must use at least one BBC service be it radio, internet or TV and the BBC World Service is designed to help everyone by influencing thinking in unfriendly countries and putting across a positive face of the UK. Plenty of other services that I pay for eg schools that I don't use.

Schooling is something of a necessity, a TV license is not... imo

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, there are those who say that most people would elect to keep watching the BBC. If that were the case, it is probably the case that the subscription would not have to be much more than it is now. They could probably keep the subscription very close to what it is now with some sensible savings.

Sorry OB, I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that.

10% opting out would reduce the budget dramatically.

The BBC are under so much financial pressure, and so much scrutiny, that they are already looking at cost cutting anyway. So don't expect that to contribute to a lower subscription cost in the distant future
.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Sorry OB, I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that.

10% opting out would reduce the budget dramatically.

The BBC are under so much financial pressure, and so much scrutiny, that they are already looking at cost cutting anyway. So don't expect that to contribute to a lower subscription cost in the distant future
.

Its lovely listening to OB views but he does try rather hard to convince himself of the impossible sometimes.