[opendtv] Re: Reasons for rising MVPD prices
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:23:54 -0500
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 7:58 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
> <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Regards
> Regards
> Craig
>
>
>
>> How Much Time Do Viewers Really Spend With Netflix?
>
> You're focusing on just Netflix? The time people spend watching Netflix is
> probably greater than how much time HBO subscribers watch HBO, and that's as
> useful as that figure is. Netflix is just one of many online choices.
Correct, but it dominates video streaming. According to the following report,
video streaming accounts for about 39% of peak Internet traffic. Social
networking is second. The report offers a wealth of useful data and charts that
paint a much clearer picture of what is happening in terms of Internet usage
than Bert's conjecture.
https://www.sandvine.com/downloads/general/global-internet-phenomena/2014/1h-2014-global-internet-phenomena-report
> As to declining viewership, I have my doubts. We've been over this too, where
> the stats are misleading. 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
> http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/28/local-tv-audiences-bounce-back/
This is irrelevant. I'm talking about prime time network ratings, not local
news ratings.
>
> You have yet to get proof that viewing of popular dramas has gone down, when
> all viewing platforms are taken into account. The stats may not even exist
> yet.
Wrong.
> Craig, you cannot keep dancing around like that, and expect to be believed.
> Compare the profits of a small niche channel on your "the bundle," often not
> a conglom channel at all, with the profits made by Hulu Plus, Netflix, or
> Amazon. The former are fake, the latter three are real. The former is not
> standing on its own, the latter three are. No one is forcing anyone to
> subscribe to Netflix, Craig, or to Hulu Plus. If you're only into sports, no
> one is holding you hostage to subsidize Netflix in the process.
The profits, or lack of them, are real. Just different business models.
Netflix has profits, but they are quite small compared to revenues and
expenses. Hulu was not profitable in 2013 but did hit $1 billion in revenue.
Amazon is not profitable.
> Okay, so let me say this again: The only content that is exclusive to your
> "the bundle," that commands a fanatical following, that is expensive, IS
> SPORTS. Netflix is not in your "the bundle." The high-paid prime time TV
> actors are not exclusive to your "the bundle." So when you keep talking about
> all this "exclusive" content in "the bundle," it's only sports that uses the
> heavy subscription fees to fund overpaid help. You keep telling me how high
> valued content is only in your "the bundle." Well, prime time drama shows,
> sitcoms, what have you, those with **overpaid** actors, are available outside
> of "the bundle," online from various sites, or OTA.
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. While most of the extended basic networks get smaller
audiences than the broadcast networks, there are a bunch of them, which when
totaled, make up moe than half of all television viewing. And very little of
this stuff ever is seen outside the bundle. On the other hand, much of the
content licensed to Netflix, Amazon, Hulu et al, is shown first on the
broadcast networks, second on the second tier extended basic networks like FX
and ABC Family, then later on The OTT sites. 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.
For example, the fifth season premiere of Duck Dynasty attracted 8.5 million
viewers; ratings have declined this year, but they still drew 4.6 million
viewers for the premiere of their sixth season.
> Now, are you going to tell me that the TV networks NEED those subscription
> fees to hire the overpaid help?
No. They need them to make up for declining advertising revenues. And yes,
everyone pays dearly for the overpaid actors; what do you think Netflix spent
$3 billion on last year?
> As long as the TV networks have alternative distro pipes, I say, so what? If
> cord cutters and cord shavers cause the TV networks to have to hire less
> outrageously expensive actors, I say, about time.
The networks are not paying top actors less. They are producing more shows
in-house, in most cases without the the of the overpaid craft unions. And they
are filling up many time slots with less expensive content, like news
magazines. Many of these shows have smaller audiences than popular cable
network shows.
> Wake up, Craig!! The MVPDs demand subscription fees from their **customers**,
> for channels that FAR LESS POPULAR than the broadcaster channels they carry,
> and they give your "the bundle" subscribers NO WAY OUT.
No. The content owners demand carriage of these channels in order to get the
rights to carry the popular channels like the broadcast networks, ESPN, TNT,
etc.
> Why is this stuff so hard to grasp? All I'm saying is, if your perspective is
> only from inside MVPD walls, you can't think outside those walls, then the
> broadcasters have every right to demand their pound of flesh.
This is not about "rights." It is about monopolies.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
