5 ms·

Good article. I think the voices that cried the loudest about this were people at the top of the food chain -- they are the ones getting cut out. In the music i

by exelius 11y ago

Good article. I think the voices that cried the loudest about this were people at the top of the food chain -- they are the ones getting cut out. In the music industry, what happened were bands just started self-producing albums once it became feasible to do so with a consumer PC. The bands ended up making more (which wasn't hard because record companies had been screwing them over for years) and suddenly had a publicity outlet other than radio. Most bands were more than happy to give their music away for free because they had been doing it for years anyway. And I think we're starting to see the beginning of the "content crash" hitting TV as well. With the rise of cord cutting, the big TV networks are going to have a hard time justifying the prices they charge to cable providers. Cable video prices will have to come down significantly -- millennials are not willing to pay $30/mo AND have to watch ads when they can pay $8/mo for ad-free content from Netflix. People may be willing to spend $30/mo on video, but they're going to want that content to not be laden with ads.

larrik 11y ago
$30/month? It's not that cheap around here! I think the bigger crash is that people prefer to watch a full season of a TV show in one sitting, rather than once a week for 9 months or whatever. How do you make television when the audience you really want is going to wait until you have already produced a few seasons to even start looking? Nevermind the damage that premature cancellations due to future viewership.
- exelius 11y ago
  It's about $30/mo when you consider the incremental cost of a cable+internet bundle over just internet (since that's what a potential cord cutter would be considering). And while I understand your viewpoint, cable video does offer on-demand, and they can negotiate for extended series rights if they feel it's important to their product. I don't think that's a deal breaker; just a product feature. But at a minimum, the price needs to come down -- and I think it will as consumers become used to the idea that not every show will be available on every service. It's no longer completely ridiculous to imagine a cable TV service without ESPN or any of the other Disney channels, for example.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- scott_s 11y ago
  I think very few people actually watch an entire season in one sitting - but I think most people want access to an entire season at once. I think this is a good thing; I read a book at my own pace, and I want to watch a season of a show at my own pace. (Which usually is about five episodes of the show a week.) There was an NY Times piece (which I cannot find) back when House of Cards first came out talking about why actors and directors who typically do movies are now doing television. Giving viewers an entire season at once gives them enough space to tell long, subtle stories, and the up-front investment from companies like Netflix lets them have production values typically reserved for feature films.
  - ripter 11y ago
    The link isn't NY Times, but it agrees with you; according to Netflix people tend to binge watch 2-3 episodes a sitting. It makes sense, that's roughly the length of a movie. http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Unsurprising-Netflix-Survey-Indicates-People-Like-Binge-Watch-TV-61045.html http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Unsurprising-Netflix-S...
- untog 11y ago
  Am I alone in disliking the binge watching trend? I rabidly read recaps of Game of Thrones episodes every Monday morning, talk to my friends about it, etc. etc - by comparison I never talk to anyone about House of Cards because the conversation always starts "what are you up to?" "oh, OK, well I won't spoil anything then!". There's a social aspect to TV for me (boy was I addicted to reading Lostpedia back in the day), and binge watching diminishes it. Even though it is very convenient.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    I'm ambivalent about the binge watching trend--especially for more complex serialized shows where I appreciate being able to watch along in a paced way more or less synchronously with a broader community. (For short more sitcom-y series OTOH, I'm fine with everything being released at one time.)
  - user_0001 11y ago
    Am with you. I remember watching the first season of 24 in 2002 or whenever it was. It was on BBC, so no adverts. Everything had to be ready before, tea made, special cigarettes prepared, no drinking an hour before to avoid toilet breaks. 6 months of talking about the show on Monday, guessing what would happen. Then a twist comes in and memories coming back of what happened 2-3 months ago and ahhhhhhh yes yes yes amazing, totally forgot about that Had a friend watch it for the first time, a year or so later when we shared a house. He watched it in 2-3 days. Less twists, less "oh yes I forgot moments" because for him those twists were only a few hours ago. I think it is a case of "the more you point in, the more you get out" Saying that, I binge watch now :-(
rhino369 11y ago
Netflix has set the price for large quantity of video content way too low. They have successfully exploited the media industries price discrimination to get a ton of content for absurdly low prices. But now netflix is killing off the media companies it free rode on. Normally I'd say that the price would move to account for it, but netflix has been pretty unable to move their prices without a huge amount of rage from consumers. I think it's similar to how the 99 cent app set the market psychology on mobile apps, Netflix's 8 dollars a month has sort of screwed the video on demand market. I also believe Netflix knows this. That is why they are getting into original programming. But that is so much more expensive than buying second run tv shows. Especially since they created the binge watch trend. Netflix spends a 150 million on a season of House of Cards and I watch it in a day and a half. Look at what HBO produces for 15 a month. It's high quality, but it's not a ton of a content. I'm guessing that in 10 years netflix will have tiers and packages. You'll be able to buy an AMC package and a comedy central package, etc. Re:30 a month Cable pays about 30-50 dollar a month to channels for content depending on area and whats in a package. A pretty big chunk of that is sports. I bet you could buy all non sports from the channels for like 25 bucks a customer a month. But typically channels get half their revenue from advertising. I'm guessing 30/month is way to low. 50/month maybe?
- exelius 11y ago
  It's not about what revenue level will sustain the existing players in the market; it's about what price consumers will be willing to accept. I don't think consumers will be willing to spend $30/mo on a single video service in 5 years. Maybe across multiple services, but the whole concept of channels is going away in favor of individual shows. The networks don't have the power anymore; the shows do. I also bet that rather than go through Netflix, AMC et al will sell subscriptions directly to consumers. The value add from Netflix isn't that big; you could set up a very similar service on AWS and Akamai with very little investment since they already own the content rights. Much of the appeal of Netflix is in the simplicity; and I don't see them throwing that away (or consumers accepting it).
  - ghaff 11y ago
    I suspect we'll end up with a rather fragmented landscape of services. It will be potentially complicated for consumers to navigate. It's also probable that consumers will be able to cut their current video content bills but primarily if they're willing to give up access to content that consumers as a whole find valuable. (i.e. give up ESPN, not HGTV.)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
foobarian 11y ago
I think the Netflix angle is too optimistic. For $8/month I get access to a bunch of old crappy content. If I try to watch something new, or old but good (e.g. Jaws) it's not in their streaming catalog. I'm in the category of "willing to keep paying $30/mo" if I get access to everything cable offers without ads (or reduced ads a la Hulu), and with a modern user interface. I think those are the killer apps as it were.

by exelius 11y ago

larrik 11y ago

$30/month? It's not that cheap around here! I think the bigger crash is that people prefer to watch a full season of a TV show in one sitting, rather than once a week for 9 months or whatever. How do you make television when the audience you really want is going to wait until you have already produced a few seasons to even start looking? Nevermind the damage that premature cancellations due to future viewership.

exelius 11y ago
It's about $30/mo when you consider the incremental cost of a cable+internet bundle over just internet (since that's what a potential cord cutter would be considering). And while I understand your viewpoint, cable video does offer on-demand, and they can negotiate for extended series rights if they feel it's important to their product. I don't think that's a deal breaker; just a product feature. But at a minimum, the price needs to come down -- and I think it will as consumers become used to the idea that not every show will be available on every service. It's no longer completely ridiculous to imagine a cable TV service without ESPN or any of the other Disney channels, for example.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
scott_s 11y ago
I think very few people actually watch an entire season in one sitting - but I think most people want access to an entire season at once. I think this is a good thing; I read a book at my own pace, and I want to watch a season of a show at my own pace. (Which usually is about five episodes of the show a week.) There was an NY Times piece (which I cannot find) back when House of Cards first came out talking about why actors and directors who typically do movies are now doing television. Giving viewers an entire season at once gives them enough space to tell long, subtle stories, and the up-front investment from companies like Netflix lets them have production values typically reserved for feature films.
- ripter 11y ago
  The link isn't NY Times, but it agrees with you; according to Netflix people tend to binge watch 2-3 episodes a sitting. It makes sense, that's roughly the length of a movie. http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Unsurprising-Netflix-Survey-Indicates-People-Like-Binge-Watch-TV-61045.html http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Unsurprising-Netflix-S...
untog 11y ago
Am I alone in disliking the binge watching trend? I rabidly read recaps of Game of Thrones episodes every Monday morning, talk to my friends about it, etc. etc - by comparison I never talk to anyone about House of Cards because the conversation always starts "what are you up to?" "oh, OK, well I won't spoil anything then!". There's a social aspect to TV for me (boy was I addicted to reading Lostpedia back in the day), and binge watching diminishes it. Even though it is very convenient.
- ghaff 11y ago
  I'm ambivalent about the binge watching trend--especially for more complex serialized shows where I appreciate being able to watch along in a paced way more or less synchronously with a broader community. (For short more sitcom-y series OTOH, I'm fine with everything being released at one time.)
- user_0001 11y ago
  Am with you. I remember watching the first season of 24 in 2002 or whenever it was. It was on BBC, so no adverts. Everything had to be ready before, tea made, special cigarettes prepared, no drinking an hour before to avoid toilet breaks. 6 months of talking about the show on Monday, guessing what would happen. Then a twist comes in and memories coming back of what happened 2-3 months ago and ahhhhhhh yes yes yes amazing, totally forgot about that Had a friend watch it for the first time, a year or so later when we shared a house. He watched it in 2-3 days. Less twists, less "oh yes I forgot moments" because for him those twists were only a few hours ago. I think it is a case of "the more you point in, the more you get out" Saying that, I binge watch now :-(

rhino369 11y ago

Netflix has set the price for large quantity of video content way too low. They have successfully exploited the media industries price discrimination to get a ton of content for absurdly low prices. But now netflix is killing off the media companies it free rode on. Normally I'd say that the price would move to account for it, but netflix has been pretty unable to move their prices without a huge amount of rage from consumers. I think it's similar to how the 99 cent app set the market psychology on mobile apps, Netflix's 8 dollars a month has sort of screwed the video on demand market. I also believe Netflix knows this. That is why they are getting into original programming. But that is so much more expensive than buying second run tv shows. Especially since they created the binge watch trend. Netflix spends a 150 million on a season of House of Cards and I watch it in a day and a half. Look at what HBO produces for 15 a month. It's high quality, but it's not a ton of a content. I'm guessing that in 10 years netflix will have tiers and packages. You'll be able to buy an AMC package and a comedy central package, etc. Re:30 a month Cable pays about 30-50 dollar a month to channels for content depending on area and whats in a package. A pretty big chunk of that is sports. I bet you could buy all non sports from the channels for like 25 bucks a customer a month. But typically channels get half their revenue from advertising. I'm guessing 30/month is way to low. 50/month maybe?

exelius 11y ago
It's not about what revenue level will sustain the existing players in the market; it's about what price consumers will be willing to accept. I don't think consumers will be willing to spend $30/mo on a single video service in 5 years. Maybe across multiple services, but the whole concept of channels is going away in favor of individual shows. The networks don't have the power anymore; the shows do. I also bet that rather than go through Netflix, AMC et al will sell subscriptions directly to consumers. The value add from Netflix isn't that big; you could set up a very similar service on AWS and Akamai with very little investment since they already own the content rights. Much of the appeal of Netflix is in the simplicity; and I don't see them throwing that away (or consumers accepting it).
- ghaff 11y ago
  I suspect we'll end up with a rather fragmented landscape of services. It will be potentially complicated for consumers to navigate. It's also probable that consumers will be able to cut their current video content bills but primarily if they're willing to give up access to content that consumers as a whole find valuable. (i.e. give up ESPN, not HGTV.)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

foobarian 11y ago

I think the Netflix angle is too optimistic. For $8/month I get access to a bunch of old crappy content. If I try to watch something new, or old but good (e.g. Jaws) it's not in their streaming catalog. I'm in the category of "willing to keep paying $30/mo" if I get access to everything cable offers without ads (or reduced ads a la Hulu), and with a modern user interface. I think those are the killer apps as it were.