[opendtv] Re: Unwrapping the Cable TV Bundle
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 07:49:43 -0400
On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Monty Solomon posted:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/business/media/unwrapping-the-cable-tv-bundle.html
This article says that the days of the 500-channel universe are over. And
also that the days of the 150-channel universe are changing rapidly.
People are really steeped in legacy thinking. It's truly astounding, so many
years into the Internet era. The article would have us believe that we'll
have less choice of "channels," which is obviously absurd.
What is absurd is that you argue against things that are obvious like this.
For months I have been saying that there will be less channels - that the
hundreds of "rerun" channels are no longer needed in a world where content
libraries can be accessed on demand.
This was addressed in several of the NY Times articles. For example:
WGN America’s president and general manager, Matt Cherniss, said changing
viewer habits made calculated risks worthwhile for upstarts. “I don’t think
the audience goes: ‘Where is that? I don’t watch that channel,’” Mr. Cherniss
said. “I think they’ll go wherever they need to, to find the content that
they’re interested in. So in that sense there’s a lot less work needed to
convince the audience that new, great programming can be anywhere.”
...
“If you don’t have anything that makes you unique, if you don’t have anything
that you can call your own, what are you at the end of the day?” Mr. Cherniss
said. “I think that time has passed that you can build that identity off of
other people’s programs.”
Part of your problem is understanding language and standard industry
terminology. Channels are linear services that fill up their schedule with
programming. A channel may be filled with original content produced by that
source, syndicated programming licensed from other producers, or library
content licensed from the big content congloms. MVPD services sell bundles of
"channels" from multiple sources like WGN, Disney, Fox etc.
The number of sources is small - it is very expensive to join their club. The
sources will continue to operate channels that fill up the new skinny bundles.
The rerun channels that these sources created to drive the cost of the bundle
up will disappear.
OTT services like Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime video do not have channels.
They offer on demand access to large content libraries. In some cases they also
offer on demand access to programs that can be purchased or rented.
Amazon is catching some criticism because when you search for a program in
their Prime video App, you are more likely to come up with programs you need to
buy/rent, than programs you can access for "free" with your Prime subscription.
In essence, Prime has a small library of older "loss leader" content, in a
store where you can buy most of the popular newer shows.
Bert again:
Need to get past the legacy thinking. Need to get past the idea that TV
"channels" people have access to, whatever that even means anymore, are under
the control of *a* service. The truth is that people have access to a whole
lot more than 500. The only thing that is "over" is having the menu of
choices dictated by one local service only.
Programs are not channels Bert. One NYTimes article talked about the coming
programming Apocalypse. This year nearly 400 original TV series will be
produced by a handful of programming sources. This includes the broadcast
networks and their rerun channels, and new entrants like Netflix and Amazon.
As WGNs president stated, just rerunning other people's programs is no longer
viable - you need original content to draw people into your linear channel or
SVOD service.
As you pointed out in your response to the "1985" story, we have not been
limited by a menu of three choices (the early days of broadcast TV), or "the
menu of choices dictated by one local service only," for decades. We have moved
from scarcity to abundance, and technology is finally beginning to address the
ways we discover and access this abundance.
"Channel surfing" is dying...
Sources are still limited, as one would expect with an industry that is
privileged to operate as an oligopoly, creating programs that can cost more
than a million dollars an episode. Technology is now forcing the sources to
create new content - the old stuff can be accessed on demand.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
