[opendtv] Re: LA Times: From binge-viewing to cord-cutting: Four takeaways from the 2015 TCA press tour
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 08:18:23 -0400
On Sep 3, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Aside from the fact that we know this already, it does point out one
statistic that I'm pretty certain Craig missed. When we were adding up how
much TV is consumed online ca. beginning of 2015, and came up with a very
conservative number of 30%, which is more likely a lot closer to 40%, that
number was **just TV programs**. TV shows.
You just posted a study from Ericsson that seems to confirm the Deloitt study
and others, which place the actual use of OTT streaming in the range of 20 -
25%.
For example, it included use of Netflix for time-shifted TV network content,
but did not include other Netflix material, such as movies. Ditto with Hulu.
So in fact, quite a bit more "TV material," let's call it, is viewed online,
than just that 30-40%. By now, over 50% is entirely likely.
Netflix does not offer time shifted TV network content, unless you are talking
about years, not days or weeks. Netflix does allow subscribers to watch older
TV series that:
a. They never watched when the series was on linear TV;
or
b. Shows they watched on linear TV that they liked and want to watch again.
And then there is c. Netflix original programming that was never on linear TV.
Hulu got its start with recent off network catch-up fare, but is now expanding
the library with older content.
All that being said, none of this is additive. The Ericsson study pins it at 6
hours a week, hardly 50% of all TV viewing.
One term that popped up multiple times was "experiment:"
This makes me chuckle. "Experiment," with new services and options, is one
thing. And sure, that's ALWAYS the case. Reality TV was also "experiment."
Game shows are initially "experiment." Big deal. What does that prove?
It proves that the content owners are trying to figure out what works, what
doesn't, and how they can differentiate their services. Thus Netflix dumps an
entire season on-line at once, while Hulu is sticking with weekly releases of
episodes for their original series.
But to think that use of the Internet for TV, overall, is still "experiment"
is silly. I've been watching TV online, initially only for catch-up service,
for about 10 years now. To think that to the congloms, this Internet
streaming is all "experiment," simply lacks credibility. I'm not sure why
Craig feels the need to insist on this.
Yes Bert, OTT is now an established player. You could even call the a
"competitor," especially the new services like Sling that are targeted at cord
never seen and cord cutters. But the most successful OTT services like Netflix
and Hulu are complementary, not competitive - their customer base has a huge
overlap with homes that ALSO subscribe to a MVPD service.
This suggests that there may be an opportunity to create a hybrid service that
offers both the most popular linear TV sources AND deep content libraries for
VOD consumption.
It is clear from recent articles, that the big content conglomerate are
experimenting, as they clearly state this.
"NBC's Greenblatt revealed that what actually happened was far from a
binge-fest. In the end, 94% of the 'Aquarius' audience watched the
traditional way, while just 6% watched online."
Self-soothing, and proves nothing.
Apparently to you. Mr. Greenblatt appears to think otherwise, and with good
reason.
See what the Ericsson report from today said: "ease of use." "The traditional
way" is what they're used to, but of course, that has been changing over
time. Aquarius would much more readily have been watched
on-or-immediately-after a given time 0, if only people knew how to make this
happen, and were given that option.
They were given the option to binge watch the entire series - only 6% did.
So, this is something Craig finds "important," while I see it as evidence of
"self-soothing" on their part. And didn't bother to highlight it.
It has nothing to do with self soothing to anyone but you. YOU are the one who
wants to abandon linear TV and access EVERYTHING on demand. YOU are the one who
keeps telling us that there is no reason for linear TV to exist.
The fact remains that linear TV is important to viewers. Figure 2 in the
Ericsson study places the number of hours watching live scheduled TV programs
on top - more hours than any other source listed. And page 7 of the report
states:
Linear TV remains key for many households
The perceived value of scheduled linear TV remains high, mainly because of its
premium content, ease of viewing and social aspects. Linear TV often acts as
the ‘household campfire’ in a social respect, as well as enabling the viewing
of live content, such as live sports.
You should pay attention to the Ericsson report on this. Especially take a
look at what people do with linear TV ads, and then ask yourself what this
says about the likelihood that ads on linear TV will have any higher status,
in short order. Live sports might be the only exception.
I hate the ads when I pay ten bucks to see a movie at a theater. Nothing
unexpected here. People have been channel surfing for decades to avoid ads.
What that has to do with multi-tasking is less than clear. When I use my tablet
while the TV us on, I do not pay attention to the ads, and only give the
program content attention if there is something of interest.
But the Deloitte study provides one statistic that Bert must find
to be quite frustrating.
Why frustrating? Clearly, Internet access is the most important to just about
everyone, at 94%. Cable/satellite already slipped to 80%, and is trending
downward, and I did the numbers on that already. And mobile service plans
have nothing to do with any of this. Streaming video source is only 54%, but
obviously that's rising, as cord cutting is accelerating.
You are trying to conflate multiple studies and statistics. The Deloitte
question does not reflect actual usage or subscriber rates - it reflects
preferences. Perhaps there is some correlation between actual MVPD subscriber
levels and the stated preference to pay for a MVPD service. If cord cutting
were really a major concern, the number of people including a MVPD in their top
three preferences would likely be much lower than 80%. OTT services did not
make the top three for 46% of respondents, hence it came in at 54%. That should
tell you something about the current state of affairs.
Trends, Craig. Trends are the only thing that matters.
And those who can accurately predict trends, or better yet, drive them are
likely to be the big winners. Unfortunately, there are many barriers to the
kind of change (trends) that you predict. The net effect is to slow down the
rate of change.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
