[opendtv] Re: Pete Deutschman: Linear TV dips below half of US viewers
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:53:37 -0400
On Aug 27, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Regards
Craig
They are already given catch-up options,
No, I'm not talking about catch-up options. I'm talking about the content
becoming available at a certain time zero, and then from that time zero to
any time afterwards, people can access that content from the beginning.
There's no reason to think that the content HAS to be either "linear," or on
demand after a long delay.
Yes I understand; this is the Netflix business model.
Technically, this is certainly possible. It is entirely up to the content owner.
AMC has not embraced the business model you like. new episodes of Fear The
Walking Dead premiere on the live linear channel, then are available the next
day on their website and apps.
Think of it this way, Craig. A new product is introduced with great fanfare.
Say, one of your lemming-magnet iPhones. People can either queue up at the
store's entrance, to get their iPhone at time zero by appointment, or they
can walk into the store any time after that, without having to queue up at
all.
I get it. It's a business decision.
The fact that people queue up should tell you something - lemmings or fanboys
does not matter. For whatever reason, they have the time and desire to get in
line. By the way, many of the people in those Apple lines are being paid to be
there; the grey marketeers buy as many phones as they can at launch to sell to
people willing to pay a premium NOT to stand in line. And anyone can pre-order
from the Apple website.
What this says is that there is value in the social aspect of the product or
service (i.e. a TV program). As the follow-on to The Walking Dead, ten million
people were willing to make an appointment to watch the premiere.
There's no enforced rule that says, either you queue up, or you have to wait
a week to buy one. It's simply there for the taking (buying), beginning at a
specific time.
It's a business model Bert. People don't queue up to buy Samsung phones because
they lack the cache'...
Once again you are demonstrating the marketing prowess of an engineer.
People will still watch the linear stream of a premiere,
Mostly, because they have no option. It's either "linear," or they have to
wait one or more days.
Yeah. So?
What's wrong with options, especially when they help the industry
make money?
Again with banalities? I'm explaining why linear-only distribution pipes are
wasteful, at a time when so many people have gone to on demand. We've covered
this ground already. Go back to the thread about dedicating spectrum to
MPEG-2 TS broadcast streams.
You are trying to make a case that the linear pipes are wasteful. But the
reality is that your pipes are not ready to handle the load. I have posted
several articles recently that say this. Subscribers are complaining about poor
video quality and the inability to access popular shows on Sling. This is from
the Akamai story I posted Tuesday:
Here’s how it looks today: Akamai says a typical consumer watching OTT video
via its platform accounts for 10 Megabits per second or more of traffic. When
extended to 5 million users — the equivalent of about four Nielsen ratings
points — that represents about 50 Terabits per second of sustained demand.
That’s more than Akamai delivers today for all of its customers combined.
And it’s not just about linear TV. Apps such as HBO Go and HBO Now (HBO’s new
standalone OTT service) tend to see spikes on Sunday nights when the network
debuts new episodes of its most popular originals.
“Even though it’s a VOD file, it behaves like a live show because people go
in and watch it at the same time,” Wheaton said. “It’s not inconceivable that
in four to five years, the majority of television is actually watched over an
IP-delivered network.”
Sound like Akamai does not believe that the majority of TV is watch on demand
over IP networks today...and they know what they are talking about.
OTA is free to the consumer, except he gets ad breaks. This is unique to OTA,
except for FOTI which is always delayed by 1 day or more.
You missed it again. The broadcasters DO NOT want you to watch OTA. They want
you to subscribe to a MVPD so they can get a share of that second revenue
stream.
More people watch MVPD programming than the broadcast networks
Cord cutters are happy to stop watching those MVPD-exclusive channels, Craig.
They replace them with other content. But cord cutters do want to retain
access to the broadcast networks. This is fact. You can find articles and
testimonials that explain this phenomenon.
Cord cutters represent a tiny fraction of the TV audience Bert.
Skinny bundles have been cropping up for many months now, Craig. No need to
wait for Apple. Sling TV offers one with ESPN. Many cable companies offer a
skinny bundle with HBO. Verizon wants to offer a skinny bundle with ESPN,
which I've already commented on. In true hypocritical fashion, Disney
objected, even though they themselves set one such bundle up with Sling TV.
Sorry Bert, but NOBODY offers a skinny bundle today that contains the channels
I want to watch. And services like Sling are of no interest to me, or families,
as they only allow one stream at a time.
A lot of companies "want" to offer new options. But first they must negotiate
the rights. The content owners are in total control, and they are
experimenting; they are not ready to tear down the old walls.
The congloms have done so, although delayed to the next day (in the wee
hours) or to 8 days, depending on the broadcaster. Broadcasters also offer
their own content online. European broadcasters have also done so.
As I said, they can use the Internet today. But we are nowhere close to FOTI
for the live streams from more than 1500 broadcast stations. They don't have
the rights, and more infrastructure must be built to handle the load.
Okay, you're right, the effectiveness increases, which can only mean that as
more eyeballs use this method, the revenues will follow. Or said another way,
fewer and fewer companies will think it wise to invest in ads on linear
channels.
Glad we agree on something. I tried to pry this out of you with the Linear TV
Reality Check thread. The most important area to keep an eye on is where
advertisers spend their money, and how technology is influencing their
decisions. As better options become available, it is clear that advertisers are
moving their money when effectiveness increases.
But these things take years. I worked with Seth Haberman - one of the founders
of Visible World - on several projects in the '90s. Visible World spent years
trying to figure out how to deliver customized ads to individual cable
subscribers and highly targeted audiences. They learned enough and evolved
enough to get the big paycheck when Comcast acquired them in June.
When I started watching online TV, Craig, there were perhaps three or four
30-second ads breaks, in a full length episode. That's certainly changed.
Someone must be getting that online ads make money.
Or that there is a growing audience who put up with more ads. I looked at the
AMC App to find out how long the delay is after the live linear premiere. The
TVE App got very poor reviews because of the annoying ad load...
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: