Come 2027 when the BBC license contract comes up for renewal, the most advantageous outcome is that the License contract will not be renewed and the BBC will have to be self funding.
The future of TV
-
- Super Topic
- Horizon
Please treat other members in a constructive manner and abide by our Forum Rules at all times.
-
-
Come 2027 when the BBC license contract comes up for renewal, the most advantageous outcome is that the License contract will not be renewed and the BBC will have to be self funding.
I think that day will come, but I fear the government of the day will just kick that can down the road until audience levels for broadcast TV are minuscule, which I think will be achieved not long after the transmitters are turned off for TV channels.
Instead of the present system, the government should pay broadcasters a fee for each public service broadcast, which would achieve the main advantage of the licence fee system.
The rest of the money for the Beeb would come through subscriptions and increased monetisation of content.
-
Blimey OB, you've been busy.
Thanks for the all links you post in here. 
I'll try and get to some of the more recent news items now and comment later.
-
Display More
https://www.vulture.com/2023/0…eo-peacock-paramount.html
This is an interesting article, which highlights the problem with the streaming industry.
My view is that if we want to engage more viewers in the streaming revolution, we need to have a ‘free with ads’ option for every streamer, which would provide a more limited selection and with originals not being made available until at least 5 years (sometimes 10) after their release. That should increase audiences exponentially without risking a significant decline of premium members.
The streaming companies must appreciate that there are many people out there who are unable to afford to subscribe or who are otherwise unwilling to pay for content.
Absolutely fascinating article. Probably the most in depth, interesting read that I've ever seen on the streaming business and how it's upended the existing tv business.
Basically, American tv could best be described as factory tv, or assembly line tv. It was all made in giant factories, in bulk, by large teams of people who were employed for the whole year. Streaming came along and completely changed that. Destroyed that. At the moment, no one knows what will happen next, but they did give a few hints.
The streamers are tightening their pockets now, so less shows. Also, as I've always been saying, the article expects fewer streamers, with probably just four big ones in the end. So, back to the monopoly of a broadcast type system, rather than the wild west of multiple cable tv channels with their multiple revenues, which is rapidly coming to a end.
One interesting bit in the article was to do with writers. Writers were always employed in teams and worked for a whole year on a single show of usually 22 eps. They would be trained at the bottom, but eventually get to rise up the ranks and do a whole manner of different tasks and learn how a tv show was made. With streaming, that has changed. Rather than working for a year, an average streaming series is 6-10 eps and rather than getting on a training scheme, junior writers are now employed for a limited time only (hence the strikes) and for a specific task, so never get a chance to see how a tv show is made and learn new skills. The American tv industry has got to work out how to reorganise itself in the streaming age.
Very interesting read. Thanks for the link on that OB. I do read everything in the end.
-
Display More
Absolutely fascinating article. Probably the most in depth, interesting read that I've ever seen on the streaming business and how it's upended the existing tv business.
Basically, American tv could best be described as factory tv, or assembly line tv. It was all made in giant factories, in bulk, by large teams of people who were employed for the whole year. Streaming came along and completely changed that. Destroyed that. At the moment, no one knows what will happen next, but they did give a few hints.
The streamers are tightening their pockets now, so less shows. Also, as I've always been saying, the article expects fewer streamers, with probably just four big ones in the end. So, back to the monopoly of a broadcast type system, rather than the wild west of multiple cable tv channels with their multiple revenues, which is rapidly coming to a end.
One interesting bit in the article was to do with writers. Writers were always employed in teams and worked for a whole year on a single show of usually 22 eps. They would be trained at the bottom, but eventually get to rise up the ranks and do a whole manner of different tasks and learn how a tv show was made. With streaming, that has changed. Rather than working for a year, an average streaming series is 6-10 eps and rather than getting on a training scheme, junior writers are now employed for a limited time only (hence the strikes) and for a specific task, so never get a chance to see how a tv show is made and learn new skills. The American tv industry has got to work out how to reorganise itself in the streaming age.
Very interesting read. Thanks for the link on that OB. I do read everything in the end.
I'm glad you read that, Horizon. This certainly raised many questions for me.
I cannot understand why these business people had not planned for the profitability that should have followed the growth. Isn't that a basic consideration in running a business?
This has reinforced my view that all the streamers should be offering a free with ads version and possibly a more limited library (in addition to their subscription and no ads) - and maybe even more tiers in between. While we are in a transitionary period, some of the older shows should be offered to the TV channels as well to sweat the assets.
I do think the streamers have concentrated on quantity instead of quality, and that is a trend that should be reversed.
-
On that last point, one of the points made was kind of the opposite of that and sitcoms were cited. The article said that nobody watches a new streaming sitcom called Barry and yet eneryone used to watch Two and A Half Men, but the industry including writers want to make stuff like Barry and not the popular stuff that the networks used to make.
I cannot understand why these business people had not planned for the profitability that should have followed the growth. Isn't that a basic consideration in running a business?
I think part of the problem is that things kinda of creeped up on the industry, not that the rise of streaming was instant. But if you're used to doing business a certain way for many decades and then that's completely upended, it's like a rabbit caught in car headlights. First, the industry froze and then panicked over the rise of Netflix and with good reason.
But something I agree with is that one pundit in the article thinks the streamers are making the same mistakes that the film business made in the 80s and relying too much on franchises. A new Harry Potter series that will go on for the next ten years, was cited as an example of this. So, if this carries on, we might just get very formulaic tv again on the streamers like network tv and how the film business currently is, but we'll see.
The whole reason why Netflix has poured billions into making shows is because it had nothing of its own to begin with, so had no choice, whereas Disney et all had huge catalogues of stuff, not that they've opened up their vaults yet. But rather than opening up their vaults and making selective choices on what new stuff to make, Disney and co have just been trying to copy Netflix and obviously the profitability has done the sinkhole.
On ads, Paramount has announced that it's next to offer an ad tier, although not in the UK yet, so things are going as you suggest. They already have the free Pluto streamer too.
-
I do think the streamers have concentrated on quantity instead of quality, and that is a trend that should be reversed.
I think the problem with your statement here is that one man’s meat is another man’s poison. What is quality? I know that there is a lot of love on this forum for the Star Wars franchise and it’s many many many offshoots. Personally I couldn’t give a flying fuck about them, generally speaking I cannot abide sci-fi or marvel franchises or anything superhero or anything that is heavily reliant on green screen or GGI. The point I make is tastes vary widely. So a big library of diverse material that caters to a broad audience is far better than a smaller library that caters for a niche.
-
Call for long-term broadcast TV, radio protectionA report published by over-60s advocacy group Silver Voices has revealed the extent of the British public’s support for the protection of broadcast TV and radadvanced-television.com
It will be interesting to see if this campaign succeeds.
One thing is for sure. If we are going to IPTV by 2035, the government and technology companies need to make it more accessible to those elderly people who cannot understand or afford it.
-
Blimey. Another article, OB. Haven't read the others yet.
Will get to them all.
I think the problem with your statement here is that one man’s meat is another man’s poison. What is quality? I know that there is a lot of love on this forum for the Star Wars franchise and it’s many many many offshoots. Personally I couldn’t give a flying fuck about them, generally speaking I cannot abide sci-fi or marvel franchises or anything superhero or anything that is heavily reliant on green screen or GGI. The point I make is tastes vary widely. So a big library of diverse material that caters to a broad audience is far better than a smaller library that caters for a niche.
I like scifi, but not when it's all due to special effects. Only seen a few of the marvel films, so far.
As I said in reply to OB, about one of the articles he linked to, is that the pundit of that article reckons when/if the main streamers reduce down to about four, they'll become just like American network tv and everything will become very standard.
At the moment, I think the choice and range of shows on offer is immense, so enjoy it all while it lasts. There's probably enough new stuff to last us the rest of our lives anyway, regardless of what happens next.
-
Survey: TV sports rights too fragmentedSports fans crave more TV content but have trouble accessing it due to the fragmented nature of the sports rights market, according to Altman Solon’s 2023 Gloadvanced-television.com
I think this is the conundrum for the punters, and which the industry needs to grasp.
Perhaps the solution lies in companies such as Sky and Virgin offering bundles of sports streamers in the same way as they did for channels. Although still costly, by bundling them together, Sky, Virgin and others could offer choice on a cheaper basis than subscribing separately. Additionally, if they were integrated into their systems, subscribers could find the sport they are looking for more easily.
-
This is an interesting development in the US.
Spectrum goes to war with Disney over 'carriage' feesAs the NFL season is set to start - with ESPN and ABC's first Monday Night Football broadcast featuring Aaron Rodgers in his debut with New York Jets - both…www.dailymail.co.uk -
Research: Subscription services say bundling is the futureBango research reveals subscription leaders are betting on cross-industry bundling as the future for their fast-growing industry. The research highlights a focuadvanced-television.com
Instead of the streamers scrambling to find a way of bundling the competition within their own interface, I still think a better solution would be for everyone to access their streamers from the cloud. That way, you would just have one operator controlling all the programmes and ensuring that each streaming service got paid for access to their own content.
Subscribers could be offered packages which would entitle them to a certain number of paid-for services every month, but each programme would come with its own price tag, which would be set against the amount of subscription paid. Subscribers would be charged extra if they exceeded their allowance for the month or carry over what they didn’t use. This way, people would pay only for what they watched.
Sky and the cable companies are slowly edging in that direction already using their own interfaces and of course there’s the streaming sticks, but people also need to be able to compile their own watchlists as well, so they can keep track of everything they are following on the various streamers.
Surely, it can’t be that hard, although perhaps the streamers don’t want to lose control of their data.
-
Display More
https://advanced-television.com/2023/11/20/232317/
Instead of the streamers scrambling to find a way of bundling the competition within their own interface, I still think a better solution would be for everyone to access their streamers from the cloud. That way, you would just have one operator controlling all the programmes and ensuring that each streaming service got paid for access to their own content.
Subscribers could be offered packages which would entitle them to a certain number of paid-for services every month, but each programme would come with its own price tag, which would be set against the amount of subscription paid. Subscribers would be charged extra if they exceeded their allowance for the month or carry over what they didn’t use. This way, people would pay only for what they watched.
Sky and the cable companies are slowly edging in that direction already using their own interfaces and of course there’s the streaming sticks, but people also need to be able to compile their own watchlists as well, so they can keep track of everything they are following on the various streamers.
Surely, it can’t be that hard, although perhaps the streamers don’t want to lose control of their data.
I think streamers want to woo subscribers with content unique to their platform. Bundling is all well and good when you have a number of streamers offering content of equal quality that you want to watch but does that ring true for many?
-
I think streamers want to woo subscribers with content unique to their platform. Bundling is all well and good when you have a number of streamers offering content of equal quality that you want to watch but does that ring true for many?
It wouldn’t matter about equal quality. The streamers would receive royalties at the agreed rate according to the number of people accessing them under the ‘cloud’ scheme I mentioned.
Personally, I think it’s a bit messy for each individual streamer to provide access to competitors and have an all-embracing watchlist, but not impossible, I guess.
-
Decision time for Freeview's future has arrived > RXTV infoAn international conference that will determine if Freeview and other digital terrestrial television services can continue broadcasting beyond 2030 has…rxtvinfo.com
One step closer to the transmitters being closed to TV. I don’t think our terrestrial channels will continue to be broadcast in this way after 2035.
-
I was interested in the posts on sports. I used to love watching sports on TV. For some reason I went totally the opposite way, upon reflection I feel that money in sport tarnished it beyond recognition for me.
As a football fan we saw weekly highlights of our fave team onthe like of MotD, I detest the Linnekers of this world,felt Shearer as self important asshole. I always asked myself, if I could pay X amount go stream all of my teams games live would I do it. In short I think I would, it also removes the hassle of travel to games, crowds ,parking etc.
There will always be those that prefer to be there, as age has crept on,I feel less inclined to go to a match.
-
As I said in reply to OB, about one of the articles he linked to, is that the pundit of that article reckons when/if the main streamers reduce down to about four, they'll become just like American network tv and everything will become very standard.
Keep the Americans out of it if you want to keep diverse choice. The Americans fuck up everything.
Participate now!
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
