Future of Commercial TV

Page 4 of 26<1234567>Last »
May 13th, 2013 at 6:28:06 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 108
Posts: 8309
Quote: Pacomartin
Netflix thinks that they have a serious edge with their TV series. They are releasing the entire season at once, and the user decides how fast or slow he wants to watch the episodes.


I am doing that with Hulu right now. The only hard part is I am binging on a series at a time, all the time. Still better than cable at 10Xs the price.

Quote:
At some point Netflix will probably have to offer a tiered service where some customers pay a premium to watch newer productions. Possibly when they have as many subscribers as ESPN they will be able to offer a sports tier and bid on major league sports. Right now, they could probably go after some minor sports who can't get time on network TV.


Sports and news may end up being the last bastions cable defends. The current cable TV model is dead, it is just nobody has yet told the providers.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
May 13th, 2013 at 8:25:57 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 835
Posts: 9984
Quote: AZDuffman
I am doing that with Hulu right now. The only hard part is I am binging on a series at a time, all the time. Still better than cable at 10Xs the price.

Sports and news may end up being the last bastions cable defends. The current cable TV model is dead, it is just nobody has yet told the providers.


Well, Hulu is 5.5 years old and there are only about 3 million Hulu Plus subscribers, so it is still a far cry from the 30+ million Netflix subscribers (which is 16 years old).

Hulu is also owned by NBCUniversal Television Group, Fox Broadcasting Company, and Disney-ABC Television Group so it is not going to do anything to hurt their own interests. NBCUniversal is owned by Comcast Cable, and Disney owns ESPN and Disney Channel, while Fox owns FX channels. So they all have a strong interest in cable's well being.

You may well be correct about sports and news (and reality and competition talent shows).

Technology may well reach a point where the collection of telephone wire, coaxial cable, ethernet, USB cables, etc. that runs through our houses will all vanish so that only ethernet cables will exist throughout the house.

Quote: 1nickelmiracle
Hannibal is quite disturbing for my tastes and I know I probaly won't want to see that show again.

I watched two episodes of "The Following" which is now Fox's highest rated scripted show. I am old enough to remember when they thought it was bad taste for characters to die on television shows. They would get shot, but they always recovered. Now kids are watching people tortured to death on TV.

I stopped watching it, and I haven't seen Hannibal. I did admire the production values on "The Following" as they were almost movie quality. But I have no taste for sadism.
May 14th, 2013 at 3:32:16 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 108
Posts: 8309
Quote: Pacomartin
Well, Hulu is 5.5 years old and there are only about 3 million Hulu Plus subscribers, so it is still a far cry from the 30+ million Netflix subscribers (which is 16 years old).

Hulu is also owned by NBCUniversal Television Group, Fox Broadcasting Company, and Disney-ABC Television Group so it is not going to do anything to hurt their own interests. NBCUniversal is owned by Comcast Cable, and Disney owns ESPN and Disney Channel, while Fox owns FX channels. So they all have a strong interest in cable's well being.


Hulu is thus owned by the networks, but I am talking more the providers like Comcast and FIOS. Their model is dead. Once 20% of the population drops cable and goes with streaming then the classic "early majority" will cause a landslide of change.


Quote:
Technology may well reach a point where the collection of telephone wire, coaxial cable, ethernet, USB cables, etc. that runs through our houses will all vanish so that only ethernet cables will exist throughout the house.


I can see it happening. Will probably require a new kind of cable other than coax.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
May 14th, 2013 at 7:49:31 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 835
Posts: 9984
Disney/ABC Television Group will officially release the "Watch ABC" app on Tuesday, letting users stream live network content on the Apple iPhone and iPad. The company called the announcement "a defining moment in technology and distribution."

Initially the app will only work in New York and Philadelphia. ABC has "owned and operated (O&O)" stations in 8 markets.

The Fcc prevents the networks from owning stations that reach more than 35% of the TV households in the nation, so naturally O&O stations are usually in the biggest markets. CBS is the only network that pushes hard against the 35% limit. ABC, CBS, and NBC have O&O stations in all the top 6 markets, except ABC does not have a station in Dallas.

1 7,387,810 New York
2 5,569,780 Los Angeles
3 3,493,480 Chicago
4 2,993,370 Philadelphia
5 2,571,310 Dallas-Ft. Worth
6 2,506,510 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose

In addition ABC owns stations in three smaller TV markets. Fresno is the only market with fewer than one million households with a network O&O television station.

10 2,185,260 Houston
24 1,143,420 Charlotte, NC
55 574,800 Fresno-Visalia

Presumably the app will soon be available at all ABC O&O markets, and then nationwide once there is an agreement with the affiliates. Right now it will have the same content as broadcast TV but different commercials.

One immediate consequence is that ABC will delay it's shows online (like FOX does now) for possibly a week unless you are a cable subscriber.
May 15th, 2013 at 8:26:16 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 835
Posts: 9984
Look at the SITCOM basically the original television series format. Jack Benny Program, The Burns and Allen Show,The Abbott and Costello Show, Mary Kay and Johnny, The Goldbergs, Beulah, The Life of Riley, The Trouble with Father,The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, The Honeymooners, Make Room for Daddy, Our Miss Brooks,Mr. Peepers, The Phil Silvers Show, and I Love Lucy.

Since 2005 in 8 years I count 82 new SITCOMS created for ABC, CBS, and NBC. Only 11 generated enough episodes for syndication (5 are finished), and 5 more have possibilities/probabilities to make it four seasons.

In Syndication
CBS How I Met Your Mother 2005
NBC My Name Is Earl 2005 (finished)
NBC The Office 2005 (finished)
NBC 30 Rock  2006 (finished)
CBS The New Adventures of Old Christine 2006 (finished)
CBS Rules of Engagement 2007 (finished)
CBS The Big Bang Theory 2007

All 5 new SITCOMS produced in 2008 failed quickly

Enough episodes for Syndication
NBC Parks and Recreation 2009
NBC Community 2009
ABC Modern Family 2009
ABC The Middle 2009

Possible & Probable for Syndication
CBS Mike & Molly 2010 probable (5 other SITCOMS debuted in 2010 failed)
CBS 2 Broke Girls 2011 probable
ABC Last Man Standing 2011 possible
ABC Suburgatory 2011 possible
ABC The Neighbors 2012 possible

That leaves 66 SITCOMS in the last eight years (800-1000 hours), that were not popular enough to keep on the air or couldn't generate enough episodes for syndication. Video on Demand with advertising creates an outlet for these tiny series. While few of them will be viewed by a lot of people, at least they generate some revenue.

I don't know if quality will improve. There are SITCOMS that are 10, 20, or even 50 years old that still seem funny. I'm not sure how many episodes of the above group will seem funny in ten years (or even today).

NOTE: I left off 2.5 Men which is obviously the oldest SITCOM on television. I started 8 years ago (in 2005) and that show began 10 years ago in 2003.
May 17th, 2013 at 3:39:21 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 54
Posts: 6164
Slim pickings for sustained profitability but then as you increase the immediate market, you decrease the need for longevity.
Look at the recently cancelled Red Widow... now add in the marketing revenue from knowing who your direct internet viewers are, the revenue from product placement, the revenue from Actor's Blogs, the revenue from The Show Behind The Scenes, the revenue from narrow casting, etc. Now do you really need longevity? Do you really need quality? Or just content?

Are we back to the days of The Studio Doesn't Want It Good, The Studio Wants It Tuesday!!
May 17th, 2013 at 9:26:44 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 835
Posts: 9984
Quote: Fleastiff
Now do you really need longevity? Do you really need quality? Or just content?


I think that NBCUniversal can produce a popular TV show. Clearly USA Network dominates scripted TV for cable television with 8 of the 20 most popular shows. Yet they have trouble keeping 8 shows on the air for broadcast.

These tiny antenna that aereo uses to pick up and relay TV signal to customers via internet for $80/year have the advantage that you get all broadcast channels in an area, not just the ones you are positioned to receive from an antenna. They also allow you to make a cheap DVR out of your computer disk.


I think that even if the government prohibits networks from moving to cable, they can't control quality. They will simply shift to more and more low quality junk on broadcast.


One thing that always amazes me about TV is that shows do well if they are after another popular show, or between two popular shows. The first effective wireless remote control was invented in 1956. How much effort does it take to change the channel?
May 18th, 2013 at 1:21:22 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 54
Posts: 6164
Quote: Pacomartin
One thing that always amazes me about TV is that shows do well if they are after another popular show, or between two popular shows. The first effective wireless remote control was invented in 1956. How much effort does it take to change the channel?
Yeah, that is why there is such intense competition for the news and the first post-news shows such as a Rescue show that captures a bi-modal audience. Once you have the audience, despite there being remotes galore, you tend to keep the audience.

Years ago, the LA Water Company saw spikes in water pressure as everyone rushed to the bathroom during a television commercial. The advertisers cried of course so Art Linkletter said "Let me do the commercial and work it into my show". He kept his audience.

I think remote channel changers can be great, but people still come back to what they were originally on... its the control that is important. Its the same reason the heroin addict is addicted to the needle, not the heroin!
May 18th, 2013 at 4:12:00 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 108
Posts: 8309
Quote: Fleastiff
Yeah, that is why there is such intense competition for the news and the first post-news shows such as a Rescue show that captures a bi-modal audience. Once you have the audience, despite there being remotes galore, you tend to keep the audience.


It isn't just that you *can* change it, it is the teaser effect. They show a clip or drop a teaser line and so many people will watch. "Joanie Loves Chachi" was killed because it could not keep enough of its lead-in; OTOH "Growing Pains" lasted years with few fans who tuned in for it but found it good enough to keep watching after "Who's the Boss?"

Sometimes you just watch whatever is on because whatever else is on is just as bad.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
May 18th, 2013 at 8:46:53 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 835
Posts: 9984
Quote: AZDuffman
Sometimes you just watch whatever is on because whatever else is on is just as bad.


So even if we all had 1 Gb fiber optics into our home, video on demand will never completely replace broadcast.

Page 4 of 26<1234567>Last »