TV channels on their way out – you heard it here first

By January 19, 2007IPTV, PCTV, TV, Video

Back in November I wrote about Why internet TV will mean the end for channels.

A Tiscali survey reported in NMA found that

63% of UK adults would prefer to watch on-demand programmes via their broadband connection rather than waiting for them on traditional TV

and that

42% of those surveyed believe that traditional TV schedules will be made obsolete within the next ten years

It was a big survey at 1,469 people.

 

  • ming666

    to quote public enemy, “don’t believe the hype.”

    the 63% number is undoubtedly true – services like telewest UK, which provide broadband, cable tv, & telephone also provice on-demand movies and tv shoes that use their broadband infrastructure to deliver. lets be clear here and not get carried away – on-demand is delivering big Studio produced movies and traditional TV shows from BBC, ITV, C4 and the US to customers over broadband infrastructure – what is the big deal here – the move from analogue cable to digital? aren’t we supposed to be interested in a business model and not a technology model?

    i get the sense that the web 2.0 and youtube wannabe (vc) crowd wants to flog transmission infrastructure as some great lightbulb moment. i will be impressed when user generated content or independent movies are first launched over these systems and that these services subsequently make money. this is a big SFW.

  • ming666

    to quote public enemy, “don’t believe the hype.”

    the 63% number is undoubtedly true – services like telewest UK, which provide broadband, cable tv, & telephone also provice on-demand movies and tv shoes that use their broadband infrastructure to deliver. lets be clear here and not get carried away – on-demand is delivering big Studio produced movies and traditional TV shows from BBC, ITV, C4 and the US to customers over broadband infrastructure – what is the big deal here – the move from analogue cable to digital? aren’t we supposed to be interested in a business model and not a technology model?

    i get the sense that the web 2.0 and youtube wannabe (vc) crowd wants to flog transmission infrastructure as some great lightbulb moment. i will be impressed when user generated content or independent movies are first launched over these systems and that these services subsequently make money. this is a big SFW.

  • nic

    I think I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The big deal for me about traditional shows over new infrastructure is if the service provider changes – if I am right and channels are dying then there will be opportunities for new companies to take their place (and be profitable)

  • nic

    I think I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The big deal for me about traditional shows over new infrastructure is if the service provider changes – if I am right and channels are dying then there will be opportunities for new companies to take their place (and be profitable)

  • ming666

    ok, but channels are not channels but brands. these brands are owned (for the most part) by private organizations like Newscorp, Viacom, etc. who also have stakes in many of the infrastructure companies. there seems to be a notion that web 2.0 media is somehow disrupting the landscape, that big media is this big dumb beast that can’t get out of its own way. i have no dog i this fight (other than i have been through web 1.0 and now 2.0) and am only an interested, albeit cynical observer. what I see is a traditional media that in the day of Louis Mayer and his associates controlled cost and cranked out production in the form of the studio system. This is where “talent” was under contract to the studio. You signed for 10 pictures and you got paid the same no matter how popular you became. no points, no backend. that was outlawed in the US and hence the studios (as an example) are in the situation they are in vis a vis Tom Cruise type salaries & participation. the studios are not stupid – they now are beginning to understand the long tail phenomenon – that films like Napolean Dynamite can be bought for a pittance at sundance and go on to do enourmous business. this will increase because the cost for indie media has gone down. in the meantime the “channel” will play hurt – they will whine and moan over copyright violations by youtube and then with faux humility accept a check for millions from google’s bankers so that they can show clips of their new and existing shows on youtube. let me understand this model – youtube pays the “channel” a few hundred mil so that the channel can in essence use “new” media to promote “old” media shows. the one thing old media understands is that money in the bank is better than eyeballs. but thats not all. at the same time there is still not a lick of advertising on youtube because they know that they will be sued under the “safe harbor” provision of the 1996 US communications act. Check & Mate.

    to your point nic, I don’t know how all this ends but i can say this with certainty, it is not going to end the way web 2.0 youngsters think its going to end. the bad thing about the current situation is that their is alot of echo chamber thinking out there. the difference today is that during the late 90’s almost any crap could be IPOd and return could be had. there is no IPO exit today and acquisition prices of startups is quite small (other than youtube). interesting times for people in your business.

  • ming666

    ok, but channels are not channels but brands. these brands are owned (for the most part) by private organizations like Newscorp, Viacom, etc. who also have stakes in many of the infrastructure companies. there seems to be a notion that web 2.0 media is somehow disrupting the landscape, that big media is this big dumb beast that can’t get out of its own way. i have no dog i this fight (other than i have been through web 1.0 and now 2.0) and am only an interested, albeit cynical observer. what I see is a traditional media that in the day of Louis Mayer and his associates controlled cost and cranked out production in the form of the studio system. This is where “talent” was under contract to the studio. You signed for 10 pictures and you got paid the same no matter how popular you became. no points, no backend. that was outlawed in the US and hence the studios (as an example) are in the situation they are in vis a vis Tom Cruise type salaries & participation. the studios are not stupid – they now are beginning to understand the long tail phenomenon – that films like Napolean Dynamite can be bought for a pittance at sundance and go on to do enourmous business. this will increase because the cost for indie media has gone down. in the meantime the “channel” will play hurt – they will whine and moan over copyright violations by youtube and then with faux humility accept a check for millions from google’s bankers so that they can show clips of their new and existing shows on youtube. let me understand this model – youtube pays the “channel” a few hundred mil so that the channel can in essence use “new” media to promote “old” media shows. the one thing old media understands is that money in the bank is better than eyeballs. but thats not all. at the same time there is still not a lick of advertising on youtube because they know that they will be sued under the “safe harbor” provision of the 1996 US communications act. Check & Mate.

    to your point nic, I don’t know how all this ends but i can say this with certainty, it is not going to end the way web 2.0 youngsters think its going to end. the bad thing about the current situation is that their is alot of echo chamber thinking out there. the difference today is that during the late 90’s almost any crap could be IPOd and return could be had. there is no IPO exit today and acquisition prices of startups is quite small (other than youtube). interesting times for people in your business.

  • nic

    Thanks for the comments ming666 – these conversations are a large part of what I like about blogging. It is easy to get caught up in the echo chamber (although it is important to spend some time there as it is equally easy just to dismiss it).

    I wrote last week that broadband TV might not be as big as I thought. My thoughts there were similar to your argument here about old media shows on new media.

    On the other hand, if web distribution really opens up then you have to wonder what value Hollywood is going to add to films they don’t bankroll through production.

    If there is an interesting web play in distribution it starts with the long tail – maybe operating a bit like LuLu or borrowing some of the innovative models that are springing up in music

  • nic

    Thanks for the comments ming666 – these conversations are a large part of what I like about blogging. It is easy to get caught up in the echo chamber (although it is important to spend some time there as it is equally easy just to dismiss it).

    I wrote last week that broadband TV might not be as big as I thought. My thoughts there were similar to your argument here about old media shows on new media.

    On the other hand, if web distribution really opens up then you have to wonder what value Hollywood is going to add to films they don’t bankroll through production.

    If there is an interesting web play in distribution it starts with the long tail – maybe operating a bit like LuLu or borrowing some of the innovative models that are springing up in music

  • Hello, for a long time I read your blog, thanks for that that write interesting and
    useful posts.I consider that blogers it is possible to name many journalists.

    Good luck

  • Hello, for a long time I read your blog, thanks for that that write interesting and
    useful posts.I consider that blogers it is possible to name many journalists.

    Good luck