[opendtv] Re: CMO: ADI: TV Everywhere Consumption Shifting To Connected Devices
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 09:22:59 -0500
On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:45 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here we go again, as Ronald Reagan famously said. Craig gives his own
opinions as fact, and ignores the article in question. This is what the
article says about the Superbowl:
------------------------------
http://www.cmo.com/articles/2016/2/24/adi-q4-digital-video-benchmark-report.html
"The final audience numbers for Super Bowl came out and it wasn't the highest
year," said Tamara Gaffney, principal at ADI. "And I don't think it's because
fewer people watched the Super Bowl. Declining numbers like that indicate
that digital is starting to siphon off viewers.
I saw Ronald Reagan speak in Florida when I was 16. Way back in 1964 he was
already the most enlighten politician I have ever seen. The "there you go
again" cut down was used in a debate with Jimmy Carter in the 1980 campaign.
Apparently you are just as clueless as Carter...
Just because someone writes something in an article DOES NOT make it correct.
Sunday, in an earlier response to this thread I wrote:
The live TV audience for Super Bowl 49 was 114.4 million. The streaming
audience was 1.3 million. The live TV audience for Super Bowl 50 was 111.9
million. The streaming audience was 1.4 million.
You are correct that the article said that streaming was siphoning off the
live TV audience. Unfortunately, the author of that article did not check her
facts; her bias is rather obvious...
As is yours.
You really need to stop undermining your credibility Bert!
This is the article, not my words.
And as I clearly said the article was wrong, and I provided hard facts to prove
it. Yet you keep coming back and citing it as if we're true.
I think you have to agree that if IP streaming siphoned off viewers from
traditional QAM broadcast, the STB was being bypassed, Craig.
If an MVPD subscriber chooses to watch a live stream that is available to that
subscriber as both a QAM stream to their STB and as an Internet TVE stream, via
a connected TV device rather than their STB, then yes, it is siphoning off
viewers from the QAM service.
Nothing in the ADI report, including the mistaken conclusion of the author,
tells us that subscribers are choosing to view an Internet stream rather than
the QAM equivalent.
Clearly if a customer subscribes to a MVPD or VMVPD service that is delivered
ONLY through a connected TV device, THAT is "siphoning off" viewers from a QAM
based service. It is equally clear that this is indeed happening, although we
have no numbers to determine how many people are doing this:
- we have no subscriber numbers for Sling TV.
- we have no subscriber numbers for CBS All Access
- we have no subscriber numbers for the new Charter and TWC in-band IP MVPD
bundles.
- and we have no numbers from ADI to support the notion that people are using a
connected TV device instead of a STB to watch the same streams.
What we do have is evidence that the number of MVPD subscribers using a TVE
service is growing - 17.4% of MVPD subscribers used a TVE App in Q4/15. And the
number of TVE authentications in Q4/15 more than doubled compared with Q4/14.
We also know that Netflix and other OTT services are siphoning off viewers from
QAM based streams. That is not in question.
I think that if TVE growth doubled, and specifically what they call
"broadcast and cable content" more than doubled this past year, in terms of
TVE usage, there again the proprietary STB was being bypassed. You do not
need the STB when streaming over broadband, Craig.
Correct. But the Devi is in the details Bert. The ADI report says nothing about
what people were watching. It does tell us a bit about the devices they used.
So we can properly conclude that the authentications for iOS, Android and
browsers allowed subscribers to access content they are paying for without use
of the QAM umbilical - we do not know if people were "home" or "mobile" for
these authentications. And we do not know if the authentications for connected
devices were for streams ALSO available on the QAM service, or on demand
services such as time shifted viewing of recent shows or access to library
content.
So stop with the misinformed conclusions. Yes it is now possible to bypass the
leased STBs, but the majority of MVPD subscribers use both a leased STB and a
connected TV device as needed. It is not yet possible to bypass the QAM service
for all of the content offered by the MVPDs. At best, new options like the
Charter and TWC Apps are making dome, but not all of the MVPD content available
via a connected device.
She was WRONG Bert. The numbers prove this. The streaming audience
increased by 100,000; the TV audience decreased by 2.5 million.
My assumption here is that the streaming audience is not counted accurately,
because it was being streamed by so many different ISPs, some unrelated to
cable systems. In any event, if you disagree, please do contact the author.
Against, both you and the author are basing this on ASSUMPTIONS.
It is probably true that some thing are missed in any audience measurement
scheme. As was stated in the article with the numbers for the Super Bowl
audience, the people at sports bars and restaurants watching the game were not
included in the total TV audience. But the streaming audience is rather easy to
measure - Adobe can access data on the number of streams from the servers and
the actual WAN traffic. One of the biggest benefits of moving to IP streaming
is the ability to accurately measure the audience.
Next you say live consumption is declining rapidly for most content.
But you have no real data to back this up.
First, we had last year's multiple articles describing this phenomenon. And
then, this article says:
"Broadcast & Cable content had the highest TVE growth YoY, at 111%, according
to ADI's analysis. 'This is the first time we've seen that, and we think it's
because of some of these fall TV premieres and people waiting to watch **when
it's most convenient** for them instead of when it broadcasts on the actual
cable channel,' Tasker said."
If they are watching when "it is most convenient," this means they are time
shifting, not watching the live stream via a connected device. As I said in my
first response in this thread Bert, TVE can be used for time shifting INSTEAD
of a DVR. They also noted that much of this "broadcast and cable" content only
became available on connected devices in the last two quarters of 2015.
To the extent that TVE makes it possible to eliminate the need for a leased
STB/DVR, I can only say THANKS.
Yesterday I went to the Cox Cable store to get a new STB, or to switch back to
the analog extended basic tier. I came back with a replacement box. Why?
The cost to subscribe to the extended basic analog tier is now $79/mo; the cost
for the extended basic digital tier us $81/mo. The digital tier requires a
leased STB. But I recently negotiated a lower rate for my bundle - they gave me
a $30/mo discount. They toLd me I would not qualify for this discount if I
switched to the analog bundle. So the net savings of moving back to analog and
NOT using their leased STB was $1/mo.
Needless to say I am eagerly awaiting the day I can ditch the Cox TV service
altogether and get the content I want from an OTT service. Unfortunately what I
want does not exist yet. But your buddy Les says it will happen...
Eventually.
Obviously, Craig, that kind of increase in IP streaming on demand, as the
article claims (not me), can only be caused by two effects:
1. Either people are ditching their DVRs in droves, using IP streaming
instead of the DVR, and/or
2. People are ditching by appointment viewing in droves.
It is likely that both are happening, although I would caution against
characterize what is happening as "in droves." Once again you need to
understand how statistics are being used to promote and hype various aspects of
the transition from umbilical services to OTT services.
For example, you want us to believe that people are cutting the cord "in
droves," but the reality is that the declines are a very small percentage, and
the rate of cord cutting is decreasing, not increasing.
If the congloms decide to make it easy for people to move to connected TV
devices - and TVE clearly is a step in this direction - SO WHAT?
It may make the FCC Set Top Box irrelevant, but it protects their subscriber
base and foes nothing to increase competition. The Charter and TWC Apps
illustrate just how easy it will be to move people from in-band QAM to in-band
IP streams. It also illustrates how easy it is to keep people inside the
existing pay walls.
Most likely, a combination of the two effects. Which would be, by appointment
viewing is in decline still (i.e. now below the 47% number of last spring),
and usage of DVRs is being replaced by online streaming. Neither of which
seems hard to believe.
Exactly...as I stated in my response Sunday:
From my own experience, I love the fact that I can access the content I am
paying for on my iOS devices when I am mobile, but I prefer to watch on the
big screen when I am at home. Aa I mentioned, I recently cancelled my DVR
service to save a few bucks; I have started using TVE apps on the big screen
in place of the DVR. This was especially useful to watch replays of college
football games on Sunday mornings via Watch ESPN.
Craig, you need to accept the fact that nothing is static. A stat from early
2015 was supposed to show you a TREND. If by appointment viewing went from
100% years ago to only 47% by spring of 2015, you need to resist the urge to
think that it must remain at 47% for the rest of eternity.
Sorry Bert, that's YOUR mantra.
I've never said it will remain at 47%. I have disagreed with you that it is
going to keep declining to ZERO!
There will always be a live TV market. I have provided numerous reasons why
this is, and will continue to be true. All we are seeing here is the shifting
sands of technology, and the fact that consumers have more options for TV
entertainment than at any point in history. Those options have been increasing
steadily over the four decades since the only option was broadcast TV.
Slide 9 in the deck provided by ADI tells us that iOS authentications
GREW 21% YoY. What decline was the percentage of iOS authorizations
as a percentage of ALL authentications, which more than doubled YoY.
Which hardly debunks anything we're talking about. If anything, it reinforces
it. Your knee jerked because someone claimed that iOS usage was in decline.
I did not knee jerk Bert. I simply pointed out that you were repeating a
falsehood:
First here:
Speak of the devil. This is how transitions happen. TVE used increasingly in
place of the legacy STB:
"According to ADI's 'Q4 Digital Video Benchmark' report, iOS share of TVE
decreased 20% year over year (YoY), while connected devices saw 31% growth.
Then again here:
And as an aside, the article also explains that watching Internet TV on tiny
screens is losing its appeal, but that use of Internet TV on big screens is
more than making up for it.
But the important point is that IP streaming is so much on the increase. So
iOS merely takes a smaller share? No nevermind. Streaming is up, is what
counts.
I'm just asking you to be honest Bert. To look at the facts and try to make
sense out of them.
Sure streaming is increasing. I'll even agree that unlike your belief that live
TV is trending toward 0%, streaming will trend toward 100%...
Eventually.
Sorry, but it is impossible to draw that conclusion from this report.
We do know that the majority of U.S. Homes use both.
And we also know that overall viewership of TV content has NOT increased by a
huge margin. So brushing the trends aside with some vague "use both" comment
is also wrong. The reality is that people are increasingly bypassing the
legacy STB to watch TV, these days, because they are streaming.
They are doing both, and streaming was still below 25% a year ago. I am eagerly
awaiting some more recent data to see what the YoY trend is.
The streaming market is still only about 25%. Please prove otherwise.
If, by the end of 2015, IP streaming of TV content more than doubled from the
previous year, one wonders how Craig insists that nothing has changed?
There you go again!
The statistic is that TVE authentications more than doubled YoY. TVE is still
only a small portion of all OTT streaming, just as OTT streaming of TV
entertainment is only a segment of all OTT video streaming.
Think before you type. You love to misapply statistics to make your points, but
you get caught all the time.
And don't forget that your made-up 25% number only applied to broadcast TV
plus cable channels. Not to all the other stuff people are watching instead.
Not to Netflix movies, Amazon, etc, except as related to TV network content
on these OTT sites. Streaming is up significantly, Craig. Get used to it.
Wrong. That number was for ALL, including You Tube cat videos.
Not really. Catch-up is what people who watch by appointment occasionally
have to do, so they can get back to their by appointment schedule.
Partly true. What you are describing is time shifting for people already
"hooked" on a series.
The term was coined by the BBC, primarily for time shifting using OTT
streaming. It has grown to include the ability to "catch" new viewers who never
watched an episode of the series; this is driven in part by social media. A
friend may tell you they like a series you have never watched - so you can
"catch-up" and then watch each new episode, either live or time shifted.
On demand is more a change in how TV is consumed habitually. When you insist
on saying "catch-up," therefore, it makes it sound like you haven't accepted
this fact yet. People are watching differently, Craig.
Catch-up is an on demand service, which is what I said in the first place.
Netflix is a SVOD service. It is not a catch-up service, but rather, a way to
view library content you never watched in the years it was offered live on the
broadcast networks or cable.
Only because you don't read, Craig. You feel compelled to trumpet TVE is some
sort of end game, so you can advertise the wonders of walled gardens (and you
claim *congloms* need it to transition to IP).
It is an obvious end game Bery.
I'm merely saying that TVE plays right in the hands of this effort to create
a standard STB.
And for the third or fourth time, we agree on this point.
Not that it's the end game, not that it's wonderful, not that it's THE way
that congloms are making the transition to IP. It just happens to be there,
and wouldn't you know it, makes the standard STB job that much easier. And in
fact, I would be mighty surprised if TVE were to survive as is. It does not
make sense, in the Internet era, to politely stay in one's old traditional
neighborhoods exclusively. You seem unable to get that, Craig.
There you go again!
What does NOT make a lot of sense is to dedicate the very vast majority of
cable bandwidth to broadcast streams that are going unused.
In your opinion. The fact remains that most of these streams ARE being used. I
agree that hundreds of these channels will go away - the only reason they exist
was to justify annual MVPD rate increases and to sell cheap commercials in
library content. But many channels are very popular and deliver a larger total
audience than the broadcast networks.
The live streams will shift from QAM to IP as we are seeing with Charter and
TWC. What does not make sense is to force this shift any faster than needed to
meet customer demand.
I am glad to see however, that you are getting on board with the
little connected TV boxes you despise!
Just like TVE, they play into this effort of creating the standard STB.
Doesn't mean they're wonderful. I don't know why anyone would want to be in
that straightjacket.
Because tens of millions want a better way to watch TV and discover their
program options.
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: