The TV Business May Be Starting To Collapse

[piasabird]

I just have u-verse internet-only no cable, no IP cable, for internet only. You are not really saving money by getting the cable with it. Plus there is nothing on I want to watch.

 

[Ninjahedge]

If the show cost $5 per ep, we would not be seeing that show much.

A side question though. As has been proven in many other venues, how can we be sure to keep our "selective" television programs from degrading into "Nude kickboxing after school special" or "1001 ways to blame everybody else for the world's problems News"?

Our Nielsen ratings are bad enough. Having shows like 2.5 "men" dominate the charts on such with repartee that will be echoed throughout the ages.....>hurk<. The only thing I fear is that if we Voted, "America's got Talent"/"Do you think you can Dance" style, we will be stuck with a bunch of 2.5 men, 3's company and "competition" clones.

 

[aldamon]

We have been OTA/Internet only for over two years now and I believe the TV business should have collapsed long ago. Their entire business model is based on deriving revenue from ads which are billed based on viewership numbers projected by a third party. Have those viewership numbers been padded in the past? I've heard whispers that they have been or at the very least both the advertisers and content providers put their heads in the sand and said la la la about it. Too many hands in the pot so to speak to let it all collapse.

What I suspect is happening, is Internet viewership and digital set-top box usage is providing real numbers for viewership and advertisers don't like what they're seeing. Combine that with the fact that commercials are being skipped and TV is basically worthless to advertisers.

No ad revenue means no TV or massive consolidation in content to sports and premium content. There's no way around this. Time to find something else to do everyone.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Two things will change with advertising:

1. Advertisements will shift to be provided in-situ. Just like in movies, they will plant their product conspicuously (ala Reece's Pieces) or have it mentioned/utilized constantly (Dell XPS in Big Bang Theory, yes I notice these things).

2. Advertisements will attempt to become entertaining enough, ON THEIR OWN, to make people want to watch them. We have already seen that on "Funniest commercials" and YouTube snippets. The key being, some products may find it really hard to be interesting enough to be entertaining and still prompt people to want to explore/buy them.

I would not be surprised if easter-egg like tag zones started appearing on certain shows as a way to tempt people to roll-over and "get a special hidden deal" while watching this or that.

Whatever is decided, rest assured that there will be many ways tried to make sure that the same amount of money is paid for basically the same service given.

 

[DrPizza]

What again are we "forced" to pay for? Look, these people are getting paid what the market will bear, because we are willing to pay that much. Maybe at some point we decide we aren't willing to pay that much, in which case these people will make less. But in order to do that, we have to demonstrate that we're willing to go without something because it's too expensive. So far it seems Americans are still obsessed with TV, in whatever form they can get it in. Tomorrow that may be predominantly over the internet, but we're still going to pay and there's no reason to think we'll pay less.

By "forced" to pay for, I'm forced to subsidize ESPN if I want to watch a particular non-sports channel on cable or satellite. As many have pointed out, they're paying upwards of $100 for a handful of channels that they're interested in. That $100 isn't just for those channels that are wanted, but if they want them, then they're forced to pay a ton for the other channels. Gradually, as these stations demand more and more money, people will say (I hope) "that's enough. Give me a la carte, else I'm not spending that kind of cash for a handful of channels any more." (Particularly since there's so many other means to get content.)

 

[Tom]

Cable is a monopoly because government chooses to have them be a monopoly. Most cable TV infrastructure was built at a time when multiple cable companies would have to come to local jurisdictions hat in hand begging to be awarded a franchise to provide cable. The local governments would pick a company to reward after extorting any number of "public access" and "local government" channels must carries as part of the deal.

That isn't the monopoly I'm talking about. I'm talking about the buy up and consolidation of cable companies into 2 or 3 national non-competing monopolies, which the money to that was borrowed and is paid back in cable bills today.

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't think the fact that cable TV providers also happen to be internet providers for most people can be overlooked. A lot of people have a single viable choice for high speed internet (I'd say most people not living in a major city are in that situation). When people start dropping cable to consume content over the internet, the internet broadband rates will simply go up. You will pay more overall.

Normally, competition would keep rates low, but since in most places there isn't any (broadband providers often have local monopolies), expect prices to go way up.

 

[Kadarin]

I don't think the fact that cable TV providers also happen to be internet providers for most people can be overlooked. A lot of people have a single viable choice for high speed internet (I'd say most people not living in a major city are in that situation). When people start dropping cable to consume content over the internet, the internet broadband rates will simply go up. You will pay more overall.

Normally, competition would keep rates low, but since in most places there isn't any (broadband providers often have local monopolies), expect prices to go way up.

Content providers who are also ISPs also have a vested interest in maintaining their content providing business model, which means that they'll put artificial caps in place in order to prevent adoption of alternative models.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The single biggest problem today is that almost all cable companies are also the main or only ISP in town. Until this changes, I don't see people fleeing from the cable companies in droves.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Been without TV or cable for years and years and years. I'm 26, the future customer of these companies, and will only pay for a service that:

1. I can stream.

2. I can take with me where ever I go - I can be backpacking in Peru and watch my subscription.

3. I can watch on any device I have.

4. I can pay for *only* those things that I watch, not a bunch of shit channels that I never use.

5. I can watch at any time, totally on demand.

6. No commercials. I will pay a premium for no commercials. I don't want to waste my time. Hulu fails here. And if there are commercials, I'll just find a way to not have them on my own. Can't tell you how much commercials actually *dissuade* me from purchasing a product, especially after having the same damn commercial interrupt my viewing experience over and over and over and over. Watching Hulu pisses me off, so I'm not going to continue. Plus it doesn't work in some overseas countries.

 

[Ketchup]

The single biggest problem today is that almost all cable companies are also the main or only ISP in town. Until this changes, I don't see people fleeing from the cable companies in droves.

I guess it depends on where you live. We have DSL from AT&T and cable through Charter available here. But my parents on have one ISP available where they live.

 

[Cerb]

Last time I checked you could still put up an antenna and pick up the local ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox affiliates along with some other stations absolutely free of charge. You can even choose to record and time shift from the antenna at no charge to skip the commercials as well.

Analog twilight put a stop to that. Bunny ears here will only get one of the local religious stations clearly. So, even local news can be lost w/o cable, now. OTOH, if the local channels would design their websites to be worth a damn, that wouldn't be much of a loss.

If Netflix were to pick up Necessary Roughness, I'd pretty well be set. If I were the only one using it, though, cable TV would already be history.

 

[michal1980]

If that was the case there would be no market for DVD releases of seasons of television shows, and that area has exploded. There are DVD sets for even obscure shows now.

People will pay for what they value.

But thats after the fact. Those shows were green lighted, and produced because of comerical TV, not because of DVDs. I'm sure that DVD sales factor into the production of shows now... but I doubt its a major part of it.

How many people would buy a TV series of something they've never seen, or heard of?

 

[Ryan711]

I agree with the author. It's all going to be on-demand soon. Networks will disappear.

nope, will never happen. I'm sure it will go to on-demand after it has aired, but scheduled TV will be here for the foreseeable future for the sole reason that people don't want to choose what to watch, they want to flip around and find something that looks decent. They don't want to commit to something, which you have to do if you choose a TV show to watch out of an on demand lineup.

 

[0roo0roo]

If the show cost $5 per ep, we would not be seeing that show much.

A side question though. As has been proven in many other venues, how can we be sure to keep our "selective" television programs from degrading into "Nude kickboxing after school special" or "1001 ways to blame everybody else for the world's problems News"?

Our Nielsen ratings are bad enough. Having shows like 2.5 "men" dominate the charts on such with repartee that will be echoed throughout the ages.....>hurk<. The only thing I fear is that if we Voted, "America's got Talent"/"Do you think you can Dance" style, we will be stuck with a bunch of 2.5 men, 3's company and "competition" clones.

yea like it or not ala carte does not work. it creates risk averse and dumbed down crap, you would have nothing but 2.5 men and reality tv contests.

to make a game of thrones they need the cushion of a subscription, the freedom not to go pg 13 or go broke.

 

[Cerb]

yea like it or not ala carte does not work. it creates risk averse and dumbed down crap, you would have nothing but 2.5 men and reality tv contests.

to make a game of thrones they need the cushion of a subscription, the freedom not to go pg 13 or go broke.

We could have both, though. A la carte as blocks by provider, instead of pointless tiers. HBO, Showtime, Turner, etc., as libraries, each costing a $/mo. subscription.

I wholly agree it won't work on any kind of per-show basis. Dramatic shows that are especially good, in particular, tend to need a season or two to get things going, and that just won't work on a pay-per-episode or pay-per-show basis.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Case and Point:

Arrested Development.

As soon as I knew about this show, and loved it, it was already cancelled.


Firefly anyone?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Per-show can work perfectly -- they give you the first X episodes of the season free to get you hooked, then you click the "would you like to know more?" button to add the rest of the season to your monthly bill.

 

[Cerb]

Per-show can work perfectly -- they give you the first X episodes of the season free to get you hooked, then you click the "would you like to know more?" button to add the rest of the season to your monthly bill.

But, by the time the first few episodes are made, a great deal of money has been sunk. A non-issue for a reality show or sitcom, but for something with real production value, such as the already-mentioned Game of Thrones, that's a large risk, compared to a user subscription, which subsidizes other efforts, and provides a stable income to work with. Risk must be taken, but the people running the companies want risk to be manageable (really, they want no risk, but that's not going to happen).

The subscription model is a very good one for ongoing production, ensuring that as long as they keep making popular content, and manage their income well, they will be able to take chances on new content. They will get wind of customer frustration with the service or content long before many customers cancel, generally, as well. Per episode, or even per season, would make new any content a huge risk, requiring that x% of shows are bought by y people. In turn, quality, novel, content, will be eschewed, in favor of 'reality' shows, game shows, and Scyfy original movies, to help ensure that the content appeals to specific audiences, even at the cost of quality. Prices would be raised, as this went on, to make up for both people not paying for those shows, and due to the added risk each show has, compared to when it is rolled up into a subscription supplemented by ad revenue.

 

[PokerGuy]

yea like it or not ala carte does not work. it creates risk averse and dumbed down crap, you would have nothing but 2.5 men and reality tv contests.

If that's what the viewers want to see, then that's what they should get. I don't see that as a problem.

 

[PokerGuy]

But, by the time the first few episodes are made, a great deal of money has been sunk. A non-issue for a reality show or sitcom, but for something with real production value, such as the already-mentioned Game of Thrones, that's a large risk, compared to a user subscription, which subsidizes other efforts, and provides a stable income to work with. Risk must be taken, but the people running the companies want risk to be manageable (really, they want no risk, but that's not going to happen).

Isn't that exactly the same as with movies? It seems to work just fine with movies, companies take big dollar risks on movies. Some work out, others flop. The public decides what they want to spend money on. I would much prefer to be able to specifically pick what I want to pay for than to pay a lot of money each month to get a grab bag of 99% junk.

 

[BoberFett]

Based on the evidence here, I have changed my mind and believe we actually need to expand the TV model to other industries. Clothing and fashion is far too speculative. We can't expect designers to take chances on new styles. A la carte simply isn't working in the clothing industry. Therefore I propose a subscription model where everyone gets new clothes every year, but rather than being allowed to buy the styles you want, you get a sample from every different designer. That will stop the death of the clothing market that we currently see.

 

[Cerb]

If that's what the viewers want to see, then that's what they should get. I don't see that as a problem.

That not all viewers want to see that. But, viewers which are not within some low percentile will be ignored, since attempting to please them is a riskier proposition, if the show bombing means little to no revenue was made from it. Since such a show may also need time to get word of mouth, and decent promotion, the risk is more than just the appeal of the show itself.

To put it another way, if we had per-show a la cart, Joss Whedon would probably be stuck doing slasher movies, today.

 

[SMOGZINN]

That not all viewers want to see that. But, viewers which are not within some low percentile will be ignored, since attempting to please them is a riskier proposition, if the show bombing means little to no revenue was made from it. Since such a show may also need time to get word of mouth, and decent promotion, the risk is more than just the appeal of the show itself.

To put it another way, if we had per-show a la cart, Joss Whedon would probably be stuck doing slasher movies, today.

I think it all matters on if they do a good job of building communities. To do a la cart well they are going to have to rely on a base group that they can reach out to for their show. Look how popular web series like 'The Guild' and 'Dr. Horrible' became. It shows that it can be done.

 

[Cerb]

Based on the evidence here, I have changed my mind and believe we actually need to expand the TV model to other industries. Clothing and fashion is far too speculative. We can't expect designers to take chances on new styles. A la carte simply isn't working in the clothing industry. Therefore I propose a subscription model where everyone gets new clothes every year, but rather than being allowed to buy the styles you want, you get a sample from every different designer. That will stop the death of the clothing market that we currently see.

I'm more annoyed that clothing companies do make new stuff all the time, so when something wears out, I have to spend hours to find a replacement, instead of being able to get the same series in the same size, and have it fit the same.

I think it all matters on if they do a good job of building communities. To do a la cart well they are going to have to rely on a base group that they can reach out to for their show. Look how popular web series like 'The Guild' and 'Dr. Horrible' became. It shows that it can be done.

On a buffet style not, I hope Lilyhammer gets plenty of viewers. I watched an episode, and it was pretty good, IMO. I won't be helping the viewership numbers, as it's just not my kind of show, but that's a matter of taste. It is the kind of thing I'd like see more of in the future, both from Netflix and any non-cable/sat competition.