[opendtv] Re: Reasons for rising MVPD prices
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 01:24:11 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Correct, but [Netflix] dominates video streaming. According to the
> following report, video streaming accounts for about 39% of peak
> Internet traffic. Social networking is second.
I couldn't get that report, for some reason. Anyway, even if Netflix accounts
for a high proportion of loading, that doesn't necessarily mean that people
only use Netflix for streaming. For example, it can also indicate that those
who subscribe to Netflix want a high res image, tend to have the higher
capacity broadband plans, which results in a higher bit rate attributable to
Netflix than to other streaming services.
>> As to declining viewership, I have my doubts. ... They seem to
>> look at linear viewing of TV, the old fashioned way, which misses
>> the point.
>
> This is well documented Bert. As I stated, Neilsen is measuring both
> live and delayed viewing. One more time:
>
http://www.businessinsider.com/brutal-50-decline-in-tv-viewership-shows-why-your-cable-bill-is-so-high-2013-1
Thanks for posting some evidence. However as is often the case, you have to
read beyond the headline. In this (two year old) article you posted, look at
the first figure. That figure shows that from 4Q07 to 4Q11, total monthly TV
viewing per user rose from ~146 hours to ~160 hours. Notice how online and time
shifted more than compensate for the loss of live viewing.
THEN, look at the last graph, which shows this much-hyped "50 percent
collapse." What is it that dropped by 50 percent? It is "broadcast live ratings
for 18 to 49 year olds." So as I said, I have my doubts. We already know that
the younger generations aren't watching TV the old fashioned way, and that's
exactly what I said was going on. These same younger folk are also not as keen
on buying into MVPD bundles, more so this year than last year. So what prime
time shows they do watch will skew toward the TV network prime time offerings.
Okay, so now we dig deeper to understand what's going on. Read this, although
it too is from 2013:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/tablets-hurt-network-tv-ad-revenue-tied-to-nielsen-rating.html
Only recently have the Nielsen ratings included other than live viewing. This
article says that CBS gained 1.5 percent viewership as of May 5, 2013, compared
with the 2012 season. Is that a drop? Yes, ABC, NBC, and Fox have shown drops,
as far as this article is able to say, but are they real? Read that article,
and you will come away understanding that ratings for TV network programs, and
all TV viewing really, do not reflect reality.
Bottom line, it is not clear how much actual drop there has been, if any, of
prime time network TV. Too many articles put all their emphasis on live
(linear) viewing. And just parenthetically, the fact that tablets, phones,
AppleTV, Roku, etc. etc., are unable to decode standard online TV streams, but
instead put their own special demands on the content sources, means that you
have to wait until the various sources support those devices, to get a good
understanding of where viewers are going.
> The profits, or lack of them, are real. Just different business
> models.
Okay Craig. Real profits, but for artificially fabricated reasons, then. Not
profits that relate to popularity of content. Profits that are artificially
set, thanks to enforced transmission of the content with much more popular
content. This is not something that needs to be elaborated on. Netflix has
profits, but good or bad, they reflect its popularity, as opposed to profits
that only reflect the fact that it's shoved down peoples' throats whether they
want it or not.
> Give it up Bert. Sports makes up a very small percentage of the
> content in the extended basic bundle; it does get very good
> ratings, and it does help keep people subscribed.
Exactly. So give it up, Craig. It is sports that is causing people to stick to
this "the bundle," because it is the ONLY "high value" content that is
exclusive to "the bundle," needs to be digested live, and it is sports that is
driving up the subscription fee the most. The reason cord shaving has gone up
recently is specifically because these non-sports-related "the bundle" programs
are replaceable. The trend appears not to be going away, Craig.
> And many of these shows on channels like Discovery, History, Food
> Network, HGTV, A&E draw hundreds of thousands, and in some cases
> millions of viewers, but cost a tiny fraction to produce, which is
> why they are profitable.
They draw a small percentage of eyeballs, are replaceable by other sources, and
are way more "profitable" than their popularity would dictate.
> And yes, everyone pays dearly for the overpaid actors;
Only if they wish to. You help pay, only because you feel obliged to connect to
the monopolistic pipe. The congloms ARE offering alternative distribution
pipes, Craig. You cannot assert that these prime time network TV actors are
overpaid because the congloms force you to pay high subscription fees. That
explanation would only apply to major league sports. Get used to it, Craig,
because it's getting worse in 2015 and the rest of the decade!
The monopoly you are talking about is the major league sports monopoly, which
only makes those sports available in your "the bundle," or direct to consumer
in some cases, at high prices. All the other examples you can give me, of shows
made with overpaid help, can be gotten OUTSIDE THE BUNDLE, frequently even
"free" ad-supported.
You can't win this one Craig. The facts are simply not where you think they are.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
