[opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Bypassing the Broadcasters: TV in the Social Age
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 07:18:28 -0400
On Mar 14, 2017, at 9:06 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
First, about 20% are now using the OTA signal, Craig. Second, even over
MVPDs, the broadcasters are in the loop, even if technically they would not
need to be. It's the pretend game I keep talking about.
We have been told that 20% of homes now use an antenna. This may be true, but
it says nothing about how often they watch broadcast programs.
We do know that ratings for the broadcast network are at an all time low, and
this includes those who watch via antenna, MVPD AND the web, up to a week after
the broadcast.
We also know that cord cutters are more likely to use other web streaming
services. Among Millennials, the group most likely to be "cord nevers," or
"cord cutters," ratings for broadcast TV programing have been declining even
faster than older demographics.
I have no idea what you are trying to say about broadcasters being in the loop,
or the pretend game...
So, the fact is, the content comes from the congloms primarily, and yet the
author conflates the congloms with the broadcasters. I've noticed this
mistake time and time again.
Yes, the big conglomerates are responsible for the vast majority of high value
TV programming. But the majority of this programming is only available via a
MVPD or a premium service like HBO or Showtime. These congloms own about 90%
of the content delivered by the MVPDs.
Even Netflix, another premium (paid) walled garden bundle offers mostly retread
content from the congloms. But Netflix is also spending billions on original
content, which is leading to all kinds of speculation about the company being
acquired, either by one of the congloms, or a company trying to buy its way
into the game, like Apple.
Not sure how Bert came up with the "cloud based" conclusion. Basically
the author is telling us that there will continue to be a high value
content creation market
As ALWAYS, Craig, it helps if you read and comprehend the article.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/opinions/0004/bypassing-the-broadcasters-tv-in-the-social-age/280551
The last segment:
"STAYING RELEVANT
"For broadcast technology vendors, the market for specialist hardware is only
going one way-down. Whilst not yet a 'meteorite' moment, it will be essential
for traditional broadcast technology vendors to embrace cloud technologies if
they want to stay relevant."
I'm not saying that broadcasters cannot remain relevant. I am saying that
this article did not explain how. It's a no-brainer that the congloms will
remain relevant, because unlike the broadcasters, the congloms are still
creating the content people want. That content is made available through many
different means, and broadcasters may or may not be in the distribution path.
Clearly you did not understand what the author was saying.
The important takeaway is that technology is leading to new forms of
entertainment content that will compete with and eventually replace the
traditional episodic programming produced by traditional broadcasters and the
congloms that own them.
Specifically, the portion of the article you quoted about being relevant was
referring to the previous paragraph that explained how technology and social
media are changing the content landscape:
New formats, such as AR, VR and 360 may bypass broadcasters altogether. This
enables far greater democratization of the production market and the minimum
equipment investment for a production company making high quality content has
never been lower, and importantly the route to viewers is no longer bound to
broadcasters. But is this good news for production companies? The growth in
demand for content on social media may well fuel demand for their services,
but the pressure on cost is also likely to increase, and so yet again they
face a world of “more for less, please”.
What the author completely missed is the role that celebrity plays in high
value content. The reason that TV entertainment is so expensive today is the
cost of "high value" talent. This is true for actors and actresses,
professional athletes, and musicians.
The cost of the tools to create content has plunged, taking down many of the
companies that traditionally supplied the broadcast industry. The Grass Valley
Group, where I worked more than three decades ago, is now a tiny shadow of its
one time "industry leading" self. I tried to help the company navigate the
transition from analog to digital production tools; they created expensive
digital equivalents of the analog tools they understood and completely missed
the real transition.
The "pressure on costs" is what allow the congloms to maintain their monopoly
over high value content. Not the cost to create the content, that's almost
noise level today. The real cost is the billions that the celebrities can
demand for their "talent."
If you have billions to invest, like Reed Hastings at Netflix, you can play
with the big boys. Otherwise, you can fight for the scraps in a world where
everyone has access to the tools needed to shoot and edit a video.
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:
