Personal digital TV subscriptions
March 22nd, 2014 at 9:13:28 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25010 | I get 160 cable channels and watch 5 of them. FoxNews, Food Network, History, Discovery, A&E. The rest of the time it's Netflix. Which has so much to offer I can't keep up with it. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
March 22nd, 2014 at 11:41:29 PM permalink | |
Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
Look at what your cable pays for those five networks. An estimate says in 2009 they were paying $1.33 with following breakout. Cable Subscriber Fees 2009 58 cents FoxNews, 25 cents Discovery, 25 cents A&E. 22 cents History, 08 cents Food Network, In comparison, the fees for the big three TNT/TBS/USA were $2 in 2009, and sports were considerably higher with ESPN taking by far the largest share. Roughly 130 channels in 2009 were 20 cents down to a penny. Now those numbers are from 2009, and you can expect that they may be 50%-80% higher today. So the consumer looks at $1.33 for my favorite channels. Can I get a Netflix type personal streaming service with those five channels for which I will gladly pay 10X your subscription fee. For $50 I can buy a device that will project my tablet signal onto the big screen. Then I can dump my cable (although presumably you will still purchase internet from your cable company). Producers of television are gradually being forced to consider offering such packages although they probably will never get down to selecting individual channels. The theme of the thread is that one way the companies are going to keep revenue high, is that only one device can be tuned in to any channel on the list at one time. So even if you add channels that your wife likes, you will still have to take turns. Logically, most people will purchase two subscriptions. |
March 23rd, 2014 at 7:48:37 AM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
I swear to god these five should be called the MAWG package. I can't count the number of people I know that this is all they care about. I've even been in a restaurant and heard other guys saying the same thing. I'd pay $9-10 a month for this and keep my netflix, be happy as could be. Sadly it would not be possible to approach them and offer $1 per subscriber and put it on a streaming service like Roku. Buy at $5 and sell for $10, not bad business. Alas it can not happen anytime soon. The President is a fink. |
March 23rd, 2014 at 11:25:32 AM permalink | |
Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
If you watch CNN Headline News, it often gives the appearance of live TV, but if you watch it long enough you see that it is simply pre-recorded segments that are added to the mix and shown over and over again, until the subject is no longer newsworthy. That format is not incompatible with Netflix type delivery. Only instead of it streaming, you would see an "episodes" where each "episode" may be a 5 minute update on a story. Links could exist to a "Bill O'Reilly" type commentary. Certainly food network could be a series of episodes on a theme. You could set up your netflix to play one episode after another giving a simulation of streaming. Faster computers would mean faster updates from episode to episode. There is no reason that Netflix can't develop a secondary MAWG package to rival traditional cable at a much lower price. My cable company sells a Movie & Entertainment Pack for $10 which includes the HD Channels (2009 Fees): BBC America HD (12 cents) Fuse HD (6 cents) GSN HD (12 cents) IFC HD Encore HD MTV2 HD SWRV Music HD Encore Action HD Nat Geo Wild HD plus a collection of older Standard Definition channels. I always assumed that BBC America fees were a premium price since so many cable companies use it as the centerpiece of a premium package. I was surprised that it was only 12 cents, far less than other channels. All I can figure is that as a foreign owned network it doesn't have the marketing clout to get included on the basic tier. BBC America always seemed like the most logical channel to start selling to Americans as an Over the Top Product. I imagine many people would pay $3-$4 for the network delivered over the internet. Naturally, the number of households would be smaller than all cable and satellite premier packages, but I should think revenue would even out compared to selling it to 70 million households at less than a quarter apiece. |
March 23rd, 2014 at 12:01:45 PM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
HNN was that way back when it was just 30 minute loops you could watch to get the news anytime. They added new business updates when the market was open, new sports when the games were on. But if nothing new happens in the Crimea there is little reason to change it. A few nerds who were waiting for Terry Keenan to come on between college classes watched over and over, but the channel was basically to let you have a digest any time of the day. Now I haven't watched in years, I have no idea what they made out of it. But with CNN there is little rationale for another in-depth channel when nobody is watching the first one. Anyways, FNC's major draw is their evening block. They are all taped about 5:00 PM for replay, except for big events. Load them all up at about 7:00 PM, then streaming viewers can watch, commercials can stay. So I could watch one or a few, binge watch on thursday night, whatever. All the rest can easily just load their shows as or after they air. I prefer watching "The Next Food Network Star" in binge format anyhow. The case with all of their shows. The hard part is commercials. Commercials have a shelf life, who wants to hear about the new Pontiac Cars while you watch "Modern Marvels: The Pig" this week. It could be handled with some tech people finding the way. Makes me wish I could set it up. The President is a fink. |
March 23rd, 2014 at 12:45:50 PM permalink | |
beachbumbabs Member since: Sep 3, 2013 Threads: 6 Posts: 1600 | Paco, Yes, that's exactly what they're claiming they can do, at least on the commercials. I don't have the particular service, but they're just rolling it out this month. Never doubt a small group of concerned citizens can change the world; it's the only thing ever has |
March 23rd, 2014 at 1:20:00 PM permalink | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
They have all types of ways to insert different commercials into old content or rapidly changing content. With individual accounts, they could have basic demographic information about you. Probably people would be happy to fill out detailed forms about themselves given the incentive of a sweepstakes. You and your spouse could be watching the same show on different subpscriptions and devices and be seeing different commercials. Advertisers could buy time for their commercial in front of 250,000 "black teenage lesbian princesses", or 1 million "pissed off Republican middle aged white guys" and they could just keep inserting the commercials until they deliver the order. It would be much more efficient than buying 30 minutes of The Big Bang Theory based on some demographic surveys or sampling of the viewers. Even a show like "Leap of Faith" which aired 6 episodes a dozen years ago to 14.5 - 21 million viewers per episode could be resurrected. Despite the astonishingly high viewership, the show was still cancelled because "Friends" reruns did better. That woman is "Lisa Edelstein" from House. All old content could just add to the counters. Perhaps as an incentive to watch old TV, there could be only 4 commercials in half an hour instead of 16. Or sometimes no commercials where a portion of the monthly fee is an incentive. I feel like 1997-98 television season was a watershed moment in broadcast TV. The DVD player was introduced in 1997, and Netflix was founded (although their subscription service took 1.5 years to begin. Broadcast TV had the worst year in history for new shows, with only two new shows surviving 5 years (one comedy "Dharma and Greg" and one drama " Ally McBeal" ). When the old shows finished from 2000-2005 there were no longer new shows with the big viewership. ABC SITCOMS starting 1997-98 season. A total of 7 old ones carried over from the previous season, and 6 new ones.
|
March 23rd, 2014 at 1:59:10 PM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
Well, that is the same time "Seinfeld" ended and shows like "Oz" and "The Sopranos" showed up on HBO. Around then that the first TiVos came out. It was not just one thing. The President is a fink. |
March 23rd, 2014 at 7:37:17 PM permalink | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
Good point about the TiVo's, but in theory they could have increased viewership of broadcast since it was much easier to time-shift a show and watch it at your convenience. You could do that with a VCR, but it was more difficult. The truth was the shows were not as popular. I think that companies shifted more of their effort to cable where it was easier to make a profit. Like Universal would simply put money into USA cable channel then on NBC broadcast. CBS doesn't own a major cable channel (except for Showtime/The Movie Channel). They had six sitcoms going into the 1997-98 season, and "Dave's World" had just ended. They introduced three new sitcoms (all of which failed). But in subsequent years they had far more success than the other networks in introducing sitcoms that survived. Outside of "Modern Family", all the most successful sitcoms are on CBS. They also have the large share of the dramas.
|
March 24th, 2014 at 3:13:35 AM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
TiVO did a few things. First it found other shows you might want to watch. Those were probably off-networks. When you watched, it found more and more. But what it really did was it destroyed the program block. I still remember Tom Leykis talking about how he loved "The Office" but said he had no idea when it aired. To him, and more and more others, it aired when they cared to watch. This killed the time-slot hit. Remember "Growing Pains?" Nobody loved it, but it aired after a strong show so people watched enough to give it legs. As well when you watched "Cheers" and saw the bumps for "Night Court" you stayed tuned. But with TiVo you could not tune in unless the unit recorded it. Even if it did you would prefer to binge-watch another or catch up on everything else you liked to watch because it was a rare night at home. However, I agree the show quality is what has killed them. After "Friends" the idea was, "lets just get some 20-somethings in a siuation in a metro area." I read where on exec said they needed to look at history and see what historically did well on what night. "Happy Days" ruled the 70s on tuesdays then "Who's the Boss" did in the 80s. For some reason tuesday was the night for "family" shows. But the same kind of show didn't do well on fridays. So perhaps the kiddies were home on tuesdays but not fridays. Whatever they were doing the nights of the week stayed stagnant all those decades. And programming should have reflected that. But network execs got enamored with the 25-39 year old demo. They all chased the same thing. The rest of the market, which is most of the market, was ignored more and more. But the 25-39s were the ones most likely to buy a TiVo! The President is a fink. |