[opendtv] Re: TV Programmers Put Subscriber Caps on Skinny Bundles | Media - Advertising Age

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:20:11 -0400

On Apr 12, 2015, at 9:00 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Uuuh, no, Craig. We were talking about your repeated refrain that the content
owners operate as an oligopoly. They only do so on your walled garden
favorite media, they do not do so either OTA or online. They collude when
they can, i.e. when using a medium on which said collusion helps them (as
I've said countless times).

Sorry, but the oligopoly is just as present with OTA and online as it is with
walled gardens. OTA provides market based protection for most syndicated
content. Online varies by the source; almost all bundles, whether from HBO,
Netflix, or Sling have exclusive content that YOU never see, or only see years
later in syndication.

The vast majority of online content is older library shows that may be sold
with some exclusivity, or may be sold widely to any middleman. But exclusivity
is still the primary ingredient to get people to subscribe to bundles.

This all goes to my (should be) obvious argument that when TV is distributed
via an unwalled medium, competition improves.

We are beginning to see some movement toward price competition by slimming down
some of the bundles. But the trend is still toward more content moving behind
pay walls.

There is a strong reason why so much high value content has moved
behind the pay walls.

Not relevant. I have addressed this point countless times too. The situation
is entirely different, when consumers have any number of "pay walls"
available to them online, as opposed to only one that they would
realistically be subscribed to (the pre-Internet, and still hanging in there,
old school MVPD model).

Not relevant to you as you do not pay for any of this - well maybe Amazon Prime
for the free shipping. Having any number of pay walls available only aggravates
the situation. Now many homes have a MVPD bundle, and Netflix, and various
forms of pay per view/rental. To date it is not possible to get the channels I
watch any cheaper than with the extended basic bundle and Netflix. I could drop
Cox and get Sling, but I would be losing some channels that are important to me.

ESPN is not striking out on their own.

ESPN, HBO, and CBS are often mentioned together, by any number of articles,
Craig. In spite of your claims, ESPN moved outside of your "the bundle." On
Sling, it may not be entirely on its own, but it, and live sports in general,
are Sling's raison d'être.

Not true. Sling's raison d'être is cord cutters, primarily Millennials. A&E,
HGTV, Food Network, History Channel, AMC, Adult Swim, Disney, ABC Family,
Travel Channel and CNN are not sports. Sports is a small portion of what is
included in the core $20 bundle; only ESPN and some events on TBS.

So, no sense continuing with your pretense. This is entirely different from
what it used to be, even much less than one year ago, when you had to have a
"the bundle" MVPD subscription to get ESPN. It is far less expensive to get
live sports on Sling than it used to be, Craig. Simple fact.

True. About a $30/mo savings.

HBO was expensive BECAUSE it was only available over monopolistic MVPD media
only.

It is still expensive. You get 20 channels from Sling for $20/mo. If you add
HBO it's another $15/mo. HBO has not gotten cheaper- it is just available from
more middlemen.

Netflix had to be price competitive to succeed, because it never was a
take-it-or-leave-it walled in movie channel.

Correct it is a take it or leave it walled in movie and TV series channel with
a few exclusive original shows. HBO has more current movies and more original
content, but costs far more. But remember, Netflix was competing with HBO with
the DVD rental service - unfortunately, they cannot afford to offer these
current titles via the streaming service, so if you want both DVDs and
streaming you now must pay for two services that cost more than HBO.

HBO Now became far more competitive, as a direct result of getting out of
those garden walls. This is the trend, Craig, see? HBO and ESPN, same thing.

You are making claims you cannot support. You have no idea how successful HBO
Now is or will be - it just launched last week, and no subscriber numbers have
been released. Having more stores to buy something does not make a product more
competitive, just more available; lowering the price would make the product
more competitive.

Let's see how many new subscribers HBO picks up before we claim victory.


Aaargh! HBO has been available on demand since 2001! And no, not on just one
MVPD. It might have started on one, but it was available on demand for years
and years Craig, to any number of MVPD subscribers, prior to HBO Go. Will you
get off that "live" excuse?

Not an excuse. This was the history of the service and is still the primary
service. Not surprisingly, HBO On demand became available in Time Warner
markets first, since it is owned by Time Warner. It only recently became
available here on Cox cable, although HBO Go has been available to Cox HBO
subscribers since it launched.

The point I was trying to make is that it is evolving from a linear streaming
to VOD service, while Netflix has always been VOD only.

On the subject of how "rare" online streaming is. In spite of Craig's
insistence, online streaming is hardly rare. The only thing that might be
considered rare is people who EXCLUSIVELY watch TV online.

Correct. Kinda like really rare steak...

Only cooked 5%.

These two sources make the point. It's not always easy to dig out the
answers, because too often, the different content is listed separately, or
the screens are listed separately. Anyway, here's what I came up with,
concerning how TV is being watched:

http://www.worldtvpc.com/blog/cable-vs-streaming-showdown/

The above article, using 2011 stats, claims:

"Streaming Stats
The following figures are taken from a 2011 Retrevo Survey of 1,000 U.S
consumers:
83% of surveyed consumers watched most/all of their TV programs online.
64% of Americans get some of their TV content online.
80% said they watched most of their TV shows online
5% said they only watched television programs on the Internet."
Read more internet see tv news: Cable vs. Streaming Showdown
http://www.worldtvpc.com/blog/cable-vs-streaming-showdown/#ixzz3X8t8aHOy

Some of these numbers are absurd. I have posted multiple surveys that say only
5% watch most/all of their programs online.

The there's this one.

http://www.frankwbaker.com/mediause.htm

As of 2012, this site claims that 72% watch TV on TV only, while 28% watch TV
on a combination of devices including mobile devices. It claims that in 2012,
weekly hours watching not-online TV were 12.6, while weekly hours using the
Internet (including watching TV online) were 19.6. And also from 2012:

This is more accurate, but does not reflect the behavior in our household. More
like 90% traditional TV, 10% online. This is also confirmed in multiple
articles I have posted.

"70% Of Consumers Now Watch TV On Non-TV Devices; PCs Reign Supreme
The researchers say that TV consumption on tablets has more than doubled in
the last year in the 14 markets that it surveys, and 70 percent of consumers
now say they watch video on devices other than TVs. The device leading the
charge - or change, as the case may be? PCs; tablets still accounting for
less than 15 percent of TV consumption. TV, meanwhile, still ranks as the
single most-used device for watching television, accounting for the other 30
percent of TV viewing."

This is outdated. PC now account for far less TV consumption than mobile
devices.

So what does all of this prove? It proves that what Craig continues to call a
"massive shift" to online TV has already "massively" occurred. That's why
Craig has been unable to find sources which corroborate his claim that we're
10 years away from making this possible.

No it proves that we are living in a transitional period, and almost anyone can
do a survey to get the results they want (i.e. are being paid to deliver).

Let me know when less than 70% of U.S. Households subscribe to an MVPD bundle.
And sorry, but Sling and Sony Vue count as MVPD bundles...

Regards
Craig


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.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 04-2015