[opendtv] Re: Sony To Take Viacom Over-The-Top | Multichannel

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:09:42 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

> The Motley Fool  article you posted says otherwise:

> What to expect from Internet TV
> Dish seems to have made the most headway with content companies, negotiating 
> deals withDisney and, more recently, A+E Networks and Scripps Networks. Sony 
> has a deal in place with Viacom, and is reportedly speaking with Disney and 
> Fox. Verizon and DirecTV have yet to announce any agreements with content 
> companies despite talking about their plans.
> 
> Sony and Verizon seem to have an advantage over the satellite TV providers. 
> Sony doesn't have to worry about cannibalizing other television services, and 
> has millions of Internet-enabled devices in people's households already. 
> Verizon has the infrastructure in place -- a content-delivery network, a 
> wireless network -- to support Internet TV and keep prices low.

Nowhere in this do you see that Sony would adhere to a tier of bundles like 
those MVPDs have been offering. Possibly they might, but if they did, they 
wouldn't get much of a competitive advantage. The question is how you offer 
that desired content, and how you price it. The Netflix model managed to snag 
many movie aficionados from the traditional MVPD movie channels precisely 
because they offered a different formula.

> Not relevant. The congloms have a proven track record taking each new
> technology shift and using it to their advantage. The archaic business
> model evolves and we all pay more...

Not at all. Those who either cut the cord entirely, or reduce to basic service 
and perhaps supplement with OTT pay sites, don't pay more. Those who are wedded 
and faithful to the MVPD traditional model are the ones who pay more. And they 
will continue to do so, as that model soldiers on into the sunset.

> It VALIDATES the current discussion. Everyone has access to "USED"
> content to offer as part of a VOD service. It is the exclusive
> original content that sells the subscription.

You still don't get it, Craig. These are orthogonal discussions. One point does 
not validate the other.

MVPDs for years and years successfully existed by doing nothing more than 
distributing other people's content, either new stuff also available FOTA, or 
recycled content no longer available FOTA. HBO existed for a long time only on 
recycled movies, by subscription. The fact that HBO might lately have gotten 
into creating its own content does not change that they also recycle movies.

To remain competitive, after others get into the recycling movies game, or get 
into whatever game you were good at until now, you have to expand. That's all 
this demonstrates.

Some people only want the recycled movies. For them Netflix was a good choice. 
Then Netflix saw what HBO was doing, and they said "me too." SO WHAT?

>> Which John Skipper says he'll distribute using whatever models make
>> sense at the time, is beginning to do so with MLS content, and that
> he's keeping his options open for the rest.
>
> Skipper said no such thing.

Groan. Here we go again. Will you really never learn? Check back, before 
contradicting.

----------------------------------
http://soccerly.com/article/an3rocha/espn-tests-new-business-model-good-news-for-mls-fans

. . .

According to ESPN President John Skipper, they're trying a new strategy in 
where they are they believe there could be more profit by engaging digital 
content with on-screen ads and a direct-to-consumer strategy.

"We've just got to think about other business models," Skipper said at last 
week's conference "We're not far along on any them, but we do think about how 
we might capture more money direct from consumers. You saw us buy MLS digital 
rights. It was a clue, but we still don't know what we will do with that. 
That's a direct-to-consumer package we bought. We could do it just like it's 
done now through multichannel distributors or we can do something different 
with it to go direct to consumer," he said.
----------------------------------

Read again and again the second paragraph in that excerpt. "We've just got to 
think about other business models." "Direct to consumers." What do those words 
mean? And then tell me how my description of what Skipper said was off the mark.

> Yes, ESPN is facing new challenges, but they are not going to bypass the
> bundle model

Sorry, you're simply not reading.

> And they always make us pay. That is not hoping to change because of
> "this" technology shift.

Those who adapt always come out ahead.

Bert

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 09-2014