VOD : The future for linear TV channels

He is completely wrong.

Some people binge watch. Most people don't.

The act of transmitting The Night Manager at 9pm on a Sunday evening is a more powerful piece of marketing than anything in any VOD operator's arsenal. Sat watching TV this evening I heard it casually referenced on two separate occasions, in two different programmes, such has been its impact and passage into the common consciousness.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

[Walter Iuzzolino's company operates as Channel 4’s foreign acquisition service, buying shows ranging from vampire saga Heartless to Deutschland 83. Before then, he commissioned edgy shows like the The Undateables and Embarrassing Bodies.]
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-ra...deutschland-83

Perhaps he has been reading a revered member of this forum postings too much.

[OLD BOY]

Well, he is in the business and knows a thing or two about it which leads him to the conclusions he has expressed.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, he is in the business and knows a thing or two about it which leads him to the conclusions he has expressed.

Funny, that. Because when I posted these views of Colin Callander, former HBO president and more recently an exec producer on the BBC's Wolf Hall:

Callender (pictured) added that he has faith in the future of linear television despite the rise of on-demand producers such as Netflix and Amazon.

“At HBO we always talked about getting that watercooler moment, people talking about it round the watercooler," he said.

That can only happen on linear television. That doesn’t happen in the on-demand landscape. The power of linear television is at its best is when it generates that communal sense of excitement about something that has been a shared experience."

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-...ormer-hbo-boss

... you said:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well I suppose he would say that, wouldn't he?

I expect everything will look so different in 2025.

So, to summarise, when an industry insider agrees with you, he "knows a thing or two", but when he doesn't, he's simply pushing his own self-interest.

If you ever wondered why most contributors in this thread aren't taking your arguments very seriously, this is why.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Funny, that. Because when I posted these views of Colin Callander, former HBO president and more recently an exec producer on the BBC's Wolf Hall:



http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-...ormer-hbo-boss

... you said:



So, to summarise, when an industry insider agrees with you, he "knows a thing or two", but when he doesn't, he's simply pushing his own self-interest.

If you ever wondered why most contributors in this thread aren't taking your arguments very seriously, this is why.

Not at all, Chris. The point I was making about Colin Callender's response was really just pointing out that many of the detractors from the argument that streaming services will take over are those who make the point about watercooler moments, it's what people prefer, the TV audience wants others to decide what they watch, etc.

The reality is that changes in viewing habits have already started and time alone will show how far that goes. To simply say 'it's not going to happen' is not very convincing, frankly.

So in other words, you think he's wrong because you disagree with him, and as for the other guy, you agree with him because you think he's right.

Which would make some sort of sense if it weren't for the fact that you said you agree with Iuzzolino because he's an insider.

Point is, so is Callander.

You're not very convincing.

Oh, and it's also worth pointing out that the post I quoted is one of the ones where you predicted everything would be so different in 10 (now 9) years...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

So in other words, you think he's wrong because you disagree with him, and as for the other guy, you agree with him because you think he's right.

Which would make some sort of sense if it weren't for the fact that you said you agree with Iuzzolino because he's an insider.

Point is, so is Callander.

You're not very convincing.

Oh, and it's also worth pointing out that the post I quoted is one of the ones where you predicted everything would be so different in 10 (now 9) years...

What I was doing, Chris, was pointing out that you can't just say something isn't going to happen without an explanation when someone in the industry says it will.

The arguments about technology issues preventing streaming from dominating TV are good arguments from you which I accept need to be overcome.

But this constant nitpicking and character assassination don' t do you much credit, I am afraid. These are the ploys people use when they are losing an argument.

Please, let's just concentrate on the subject at hand.

I know you'd love for me to drop this but I'm not going to. This discussion has been going on for over a year now, and the longer it does, the more evidence there is of you treating evidence inconsistently and occasionally changing your position while insisting you're not.

Your opening premise has been well and truly demolished, with evidence, multiple times. You've painted yourself into a corner, dug yourself into a hole, pick the metaphor that suits. But if you genuinely are concentrating on the subject, soon or later you're going to have to accept that TV entertainment will not be radically different in 2025, and start thinking about how VOD will play its part in the overall mix of entertainment delivery methods, and how it will be paid for.

It isn't taking over, and though I don't imagine for a second you're going to admit it, I think you now know this.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Hi, Harry, nice to hear from you.

I can assure you, I am not trying to 'wriggle out' of anything. I said a long time ago that sport could be streamed live over the Internet (a concept some found strange as they believed that only pre-recorded material could be viewed that way). What I meant, and I'm sorry if I did not make it sufficiently clear, was that scheduled live TV would not be available via the Internet once our conventional broadcast channels close down. However, I did make clear that programmes could be made available for streaming from a pre-announced time. Hence, you would not have to retain existing sports channels to show live TV.

I said in post #63 on this thread that there was unlikely to be an adequate broadband infrastructure accessible by the whole country for 10+ years, but my expectation on the survival of the broadcast linear channels is that they could survive 20.

However, Harry, I say again, this is a discussion and people are entitled to be persuaded by the arguments of other contributors.

I have not deliberately avoided any question that has been raised on here, although some posts are so long that it wouldn't be surprising! However, I would also say that I have yet to hear a convincing argument about how anyone could expect the commercial TV companies to continue to operate existing channels if they were no longer financially viable. You did say that they could rely on original programming and not allow re-broadcasting by other streaming services, but unfortunately, the financial case for this will not stack up. The broadcasters can't sell on their shows quick enough to make more money out of them (take the new series of Marcella starting on ITV next week - a deal for Netflix to show this series has already been done!).

Instead of criticising the fundamental idea that linear broadcast channels will never diminish and ultimately close, what is needed on here is a well thought through argument from my detractors as to how these channels can continue to operate with a diminishing audience (and therefore, diminishing income). It is not sufficient to say that Internet viewing will not continue to grow, largely at the expense of conventional TV viewing. Even the likes of Sky and ITV understand this impending threat. My question is what happens if it does?

Are you serious? You won't need channels to show sports on line? Who is going to own the rights? What happens if a sports provider owns the rights to more than one sport being shown at the same time? I.E. a football match and a golf tournament? What will the content owners do, just have a basic website with two or more non-website branded links which take websites back 20 years? Of course they won't. They will be labelled as channels. When they have more than event showing, again, it will be scheduled and become linear TV.

Go on, give me a laugh, why wont scheduled live TV be available "when" conventional TV broadcast channels "close down"?

I will continue to criticize the fundemantal idea that linear broadcast channels will never diminsh, and ultimately close, because that is your original premise, which you have apparently never changed!! As soon as something is set to a schedule, it is linear TV.

The channels will continue OB, I can't express that simply enough. Lots of people have agreed with you that some channels will fold in the future (and that is my answer to the newest discussion you propose - even though you have not changed your mind or anything since your original premise), as they do now, but you seem to want to ignore that point too, ironically. So just to be clear, some channels will close in future, many won't. How much clearer can I be on another of the questions you have raised (that have not changed from your original premise.) You have happily mentioned channel owners/content owners will continue to sell their content to Netflix etc (as with Marcella), and I have said before if they do continue to do this (and they will for as long it is financially viable for them) and Netflix etc become a big enough threat to them, they will simply stop selling the content to them, or charge Netflix a fortune for the rights of the best shows they produce.

I appreciate I have not replied to all your old posts - we will run out of space but do ask me more questions directly, if you think I have ignored anything important.

You have continued to deliberatley not answer questions on basic costs and how things will run in future (among many others raised by myself and others). So if you were in charge of everything in 20 years, how often would people have to pay a subscription, how much would you charge for the privalige of each subscription, and how streaming services would you have? Please don't give me rubbish about not knowing the future, (you are happy to tell us what you think will happen with broadcast channels) have the courage of your convictions and answer the questions.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

[Walter Iuzzolino's company operates as Channel 4’s foreign acquisition service, buying shows ranging from vampire saga Heartless to Deutschland 83. Before then, he commissioned edgy shows like the The Undateables and Embarrassing Bodies.]
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-ra...deutschland-83

Unfortunately, he can not say anything else. A large part of the programming he has bought is only available online. When I looked at it the website, it looked to me that a number of programmes looked rubbish, and were the dregs of the shows no other channels wanted. I guess a large part of his reputation, and job, now will rely on the success of the viewership of his foreign shows.

---------- Post added at 22:36 ---------- Previous post was at 22:25 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I thought it better to answer your post paragraph by paragraph, Harry, it saves flitting backwards and forwards with these very long posts.

---------- Post added at 12:20 ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 ----------

So that makes his view less valid than yours? I don't think so.

Lol. Where did I say his opinion is not valid? I merely highlighted the big boss man of Netflix clearly does not share your views of linear TV dying in less than 20 years. It clearly does not help your case, so perhaps you should actually be questioning his views!!

[1andrew1]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/analys...16-4?r=US&IR=T

[denphone]

l would not read much into that as shares go up and down on a regular basis.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by denphone

l would not read much into that as shares go up and down on a regular basis.

Not by ten per cent they don't!

[denphone]

A total overreaction in my opinion Andrew.

Originally Posted by denphone

A total overreaction in my opinion Andrew.

Not necessarily. Tech companies, whether startups or more established ones doing something very new, are often priced more on future potential rather than current earnings (which is how the dotcom bubble occurred). When it becomes apparent that future earnings have been overestimated, there can be a sudden, sharp price correction (which is why the dotcom bubble burst).

Largely because of the dotcom crash, investors are generally more cautious these days and are liable to bail out at the first sign that earnings potential isn't being realised. In Netflix's case it isn't current earnings that has disappointed anyone (their earnings are on target), but their international growth (which is not on target). This follows a failure to hit target for two consecutive quarters in their domestic market last year.

In short, investors are beginning to wake up to the possibility that Netflix may reach saturation point some considerable way short of where some people assert it is heading.