[opendtv] Re: Reasons for rising MVPD prices
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:05:46 -0500
> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:17 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>
>> This did not show that TV viewing is either up or down.
>
> Take another look:
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/brutal-50-decline-in-tv-viewership-shows-why-your-cable-bill-is-so-high-2013-1
Please stop the "bait and switch" Bert.
You posted an article that says the audience for local news is up. I posted the
article about the networks losing half their audience since 2002. As I said, it
is not possible to infer that TV viewing is up or down by looking at one
relatively small type of programming.
> Look at the first graph. Look at the total monthly hours, on the left axis.
> As I said, TV viewing has gone up, from 2007 to at least 2011, where that
> graph ends. I already read the numbers out for you, Craig.
Yes Bert, I posted the article. Nobody is disputing that total hours viewed is
up. The chart says very little about what people are watching, only how they
are watching - live, time shifted, online and mobile. The article goes on to
document the decline in the audience for the broadcast networks, which is the
subject of this discussion.
>> That's funny, Craig. The article you mention here gives NO viewing results
>> at all. It only talks about problems in accurate measurement. THIS is what
>> the article concludes:
>
> "'The growing sense is, a lot of audience behavior is occurring in an area
> that isn't trackable,' Williams said. 'It's going to be interesting to see
> how the upfront unfolds. What I anticipate is ... folks don't know what they
> have until they start to measure audience.'"
The second chart show the decline in network ratings since 2002. The story was
about the networks putting pressure on Neilsen to measure the delayed viewing
audience, as they believed, as you do, that a significant portion of their
audience was not being measured. Neilsen is now measuring the delayed audience.
>> The most important reason is that the live audience can only skip
>> ads by going to the bathroom or recording to a DVR then skipping
>> the ads. The delayed services like Hulu and the network sites do
>> not allow ad skipping.
>
> OTA PVRs tend not to allow complete ad skipping, just FF. Don't know about
> rented MVPD PVRs.
The same, except for the Dish Hopper which skips ads automatically. dish in is
court because of this.
> I've already explained that when doing FF (especially with PVRs, as opposed
> to the old VHS), you can see what the ad is about, and you can slow down if
> it's something new or interesting. And it goes without saying, the on demand
> viewing from web sites has ads that can't be skipped or FFed. So it's time to
> update the ad placement tactics, and quit the live audience pretense.
I totally agree about the ad placement arctics. For VOD the service know who is
watching, at least to the device level - they cannot determine the demographics
unless the device can be tracked to a person. This provides the ability to do
dynamic ad insertion that is far more targeted than the broadcast shotgun
approach, which at best can target the ratings demographics.
However, as I said, quitting the live audience pretense is not going to happen,
at least for content that attracts large live audiences. This is mostly sports,
but also many reality shows like American Idol, et al. If anything, the
shrinking live audiences become more valuable, as the third chart in the
article illustrates - i.e. advertisers are paying more for less.
>> Many ads contain time sensitive material about promotions, and ad
>> rates are based on the live audience, and now live +3 day audience.
>
> So, make ads less date-sensitive, when aired with prime time drama type shows
> (sports content can assume live viewing). With drama type shows, "based on
> live audience" is just not important. If an ad is associated with a prime
> time show, it makes no difference whether it gets watched at 9:00 PM or at
> 2:00 AM. The same type of viewer is still viewing that ad, based on the type
> of viewer that likes that type of content. No problem. Time to update these
> tactics.
Maybe someone from Mafison Avenue is reading this thread Bert. Let me know when
you get the call to help them figure out where to place their ads.
>> Are the subscriber fees based on ratings?
Only indirectly. Popular channels have more leverage in negotiations than the
less watched channels. But the content owners negotiate packages, not
individual channels, so much depends on the leverage they have with the popular
channels.
>> If so, wouldn't you expect TV network subscription fees to be way higher
>> than most of those niche channels? Anyway, never mind, since that business
>> model is in decline, based on outdated technical restrictions.
They are. And they are increasing.
>>> Sorry, Craig. The Walking Dead is not exclusive to the bundle,
>
>> It costs $2.99 for the HD version, $1.99 for the SD version.
>
> No, Craig. Strain your memory. It costs $27 for the 5th season, from Amazon,
> with a instant video, or whatever they call it, package. And you are not
> subsidizing sports in the process.
Here you go again with "the switch."
There were multiple paid options "outside the bundle" including iTunes, Amazon
Prime, a Google Play, and the AMC website.
In context from the previous message:
>>> You can watch The walking Dead right after it airs, on demand, from Amazon.
>>> Oh well, huh?
>>
>>> It costs $2.99 for the HD version, $1.99 for the SD version. Apple has been
>>> selling shows like this for nearly a decade.
> Don't be absurd! Take the guy who is sick and tired of sports increasing his
> bundle fee. He cuts or shaves his cable. Would the non-sports content owner
> want him back? What does the content owner have to do to get this viewer back?
1. Make the content freely available on a delayed basis
2. Sell the content to another middleman like Neflix
3. Nothing - as you say, they make more "fake profits" from the bundle than
they would going Direct-to-Consumer.
>> The most significant change will be the move to random access
>> rather than live streams. But this will Only strengthen the
>> walled gardens.
>
> Another absurd comment.
Mr. Malone probably is not reading this thread either.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
