[opendtv] Re: B&C: Analyst: Video’s Future Is Omni-Channel Content
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 02:27:12 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
They always have made a lot of money off of content as it moves
through its life cycle. There's not much new here other than the
ability to access the old library content on demand.
Covered this already. The big change, aside from even more library content
(which library content had already been made available pre-Internet-TV, via
in-system VOD), is that TV content comes from a lot more than just the one MVPD
head-end. Did you forget that we got past all your comments already? That's why
I snipped them.
So the vast majority of people in this country are Luddites?
What is the trend line, Craig? A smaller and smaller "majority" behaves as you
do, and that is in large part caused by momentum. It takes effort to make the
switch.
Legacy TV has been in decline since the early '80s when ratings peaked
for the broadcast networks.
You are deliberately changing the subject. Why? To repeat the same old stuff? I
said, linear TV viewing has been in decline steadily, for decades, thanks
initially to the VCR. Linear TV is now a minority of how TV is viewed. The TV
network content is watched by many more people than you think, e.g. CBS being
on the increase, and this is in large part revealed now, only because Nielsen
was ignoring all of the new media in the past!
Yet despite the decline in ratings, revenues from these shows are
still near record levels,
Covered this way too many times to mention. This is obvious, Craig. Assuming
the decline in ratings is accurate, which is not accurate in some cases, people
such as yourself are paying ever more for this content, whether you watch it or
not. Your loyalty to legacy distribution methods is much appreciated by the TV
networks. They count on you to show growth.
They aren't very smart?
Why.
See above. (The better answer is a completely competitive distribution model,
which has been emerging over the past few years.)
If ESPN cannot maintain current revenue levels they may need to do a
better job managing their business. They have no good options,
because people who do want ESPN are not going to pay significantly
more to make up the difference if the free money disappears.
Glad to see that you understood some of my previous comments. Indeed, the free
money is dwindling. What they will have to do is provide their content without
forcing the subscriber to pay for a bunch of other stuff. And too of course,
tighten their belts. In other words, pay for sports, not for all the other "the
bundle" content. This is what I tried to get across to you for a long time. And
part of the belt tightening is how the salaries of pro-athletes are reined in.
But this CAN ONLY HAVE HAPPENED because the Internet has now given TV consumers
alternatives to the one monopolistic head-end, for their TV content. Repeated
note to Craig: Internet TV does more than just provide library content!
But that's not happening. The old way IS making more money,
Covered that many times too. People like you, paying ever more in the legacy
distribution model, are making up for the steady decline. But this is not
sustainable long term. Remmeber we went through all of this already? Back in
2006, when I started watching online, a full length episode had perhaps two or
three 30-second ad breaks. That's it! We can already see that the advertisers
have made a shift, even if the cents per viewer per hour figure is still lower
that the luddite methods. These things change, Craig. Legacy methods are losing
between 2 to more than 3 percent of their subscribers every single year. This
mounts up pretty fast.
No it is not Bert. The huge ratings for many popular shows ...
are now beginning to take into consideration those who watch the show
time-shifted. At long last. Do not assume that just because a show is popular,
that everyone is stuck in the 1950s, Craig. The majority of TV content is not
consumed the old way.
The amount of time spent watching live TV dipped 1% to 4 hours
and 31 minutes per day, still by far the most time spent on any
activity measured by Nielsen. The amount of time with time-sifted
TV on DVRs was flat at 33 minutes. Rising were the amount of time
spent on tablets, up 63% to 31 minutes and smartphone use, up 60%
to 1 hour and 39 minutes.
Oh ooops, Craig neglected to mention that "browsers" were up 23% too, for a
daily total of 0.97 of an hour, way more than ANY DEVICE except smartphones.
Craig also neglected to say that daily video consumption accounts for 8.66
hours per day total, of which only 4.52 hours are "live" (supposedly, but
clearly in-home PVR use was ignored).
So as always, Craig, you really do struggle with the numbers. The truth is, we
already know from other articles that in-system DVRs are used very little, for
time-shift viewing.
Pay attention Craig! The Business Insider article Craig is now referencing
lumps all daily online "media consumption" together, be it TV or other video.
Unlike what an earlier article did. So these are the numbers.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-tv-do-americans-watch-2016-6
Total daily hours viewing old-fashioned TV, time shifted TV, and other "media
consumption" (could be Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, etc.): 8.66
Total daily hours viewing luddite broadcast TV streams (but my bet is this
includes in-home PVR use): 4.52
Total hours watching time-shifted TV, Internet TV, and any other "online media
stream," which includes in-system DVR or online: 4.14
So, this article says that 4.14/8.66 = 48% of daily video is being watched by
other-than-linear-stream methods. And only just 0.55 hours of that is
(presumably) in-system DVR. The article DOES NOT separate online TV viewing
from other online "media consumption." Since we know that the vast majority of
online streaming is not going to be linear streams, we can deduce that even if
in-home PVRs are ignored completely, about 1/2 of daily video is consumed
time-shifted, a tiny fraction of that being in-system DVRs.
You really need to spend your own quality time doing the numbers, Craig, so you
don’t come out with absurd statements. Nowhere close to 80% of TV is being
consumed live. (Note: Experience has taught me to keep the numbers handy,
because it will take extreme efforts for Craig to grasp these numbers.)
Problem is that I'm right 95% of the time...
Funny.
4.1 hours versus 33 minute for DVR and time on new devices
Wow, Craig, you are so very challenged. You totally ignored watching TV online.
See above.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/currency/analyst-video-s-future-omni-channel-content/159491
"A decline in pay-TV households lowered TV revenues by About $210 million per
month,"
She actually says nothing about people bailing in the article
Let's see now. The legacy method charges subscribers more and more each year,
and yet they are suffering substantial losses in annual revenues. I wonder what
that might mean?
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:
