4 ms·

Linear TV as a concept just doesn't seem sustainable for much longer at the current trajectory. It's lost half its viewership in the past 3 years [1]. The decli

Linear TV as a concept just doesn't seem sustainable for much longer at the current trajectory. It's lost half its viewership in the past 3 years [1]. The decline will continue. Flagship channels will continue to exist, but at some point the bundling model will break down when the economics deteriorate further. Bundling is the only thing keeping most of these channels afloat. [1] https://medium.com/@ThinkNowTweets/linear-tv-loses-half-its-viewers-as-streaming-services-soar-61ac0d67381f https://medium.com/@ThinkNowTweets/linear-tv-loses-half-its-...

themodelplumber 6y ago
I think there will always be demand for linear content. But I would add that linear content tends to benefit an audience that is somewhat off the HN-user's psychological radar: 1) Enjoy "noise" in the environment, 2) appreciate scheduled, always-on randomness, and 3) tend to want to like what is generally liked by society. Mass consumerism is the more pessimistic name for it. Bundling is also beneficial for allowing some choice as a value-add, as opposed to choice-first like Netflix. There's less friction in the former, less in the way of putting some random thing on and making it stay on while changing programming over time.
selectodude 6y ago
It’s sports. As long as people want sports, they can bundle and charge whatever they want. HGTV probably pays for itself in advertising alone, but bundle it with, say, ESPN and you can charge $1/mo and streaming companies have no choice but to buy it. I would love to spend $65/mo for all the sports, but I can’t. All of the people who want the channels I don’t want are subsidizing me. Unbundle everything and now I’m paying $170/mo and all the other ancillary channels cease to exist.
- dexterdog 6y ago
  ESPN needs way way more than one dollar per month per subscriber for their licensing alone.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    Of course. ESPN is about $10/mo on every single cable bill. Only a third of cable subscribers ever watch ESPN. If I had to pay fair price for it, I’d be spending likely close to $40-50 on ESPN alone. Add that onto ESPN+, BeIN Sports, NBCSN, Fox Sports, etc and I’d absolutely be up near $150 if I actually paid what it cost.
  - sircastor 6y ago
    I recall reading somewhere it was something like $6/subscriber, they highest of any channel, and every subscriber pays to support the channel for those who utilize it.
    - dexterdog 6y ago
      I thought it was more than that, but you may be right. Regardless if it goes a la carte the price would have to be more than double that because at least half of the people would drop it. Their whole business model is based on the forced purchase in partnership with the cable companies and it is absolutely not sustainable for the future.
- nickik 6y ago
  I just pay directly for NBA streaming, I don't care about the others.

themodelplumber 6y ago

I think there will always be demand for linear content. But I would add that linear content tends to benefit an audience that is somewhat off the HN-user's psychological radar: 1) Enjoy "noise" in the environment, 2) appreciate scheduled, always-on randomness, and 3) tend to want to like what is generally liked by society. Mass consumerism is the more pessimistic name for it. Bundling is also beneficial for allowing some choice as a value-add, as opposed to choice-first like Netflix. There's less friction in the former, less in the way of putting some random thing on and making it stay on while changing programming over time.

selectodude 6y ago

It’s sports. As long as people want sports, they can bundle and charge whatever they want. HGTV probably pays for itself in advertising alone, but bundle it with, say, ESPN and you can charge $1/mo and streaming companies have no choice but to buy it. I would love to spend $65/mo for all the sports, but I can’t. All of the people who want the channels I don’t want are subsidizing me. Unbundle everything and now I’m paying $170/mo and all the other ancillary channels cease to exist.

dexterdog 6y ago
ESPN needs way way more than one dollar per month per subscriber for their licensing alone.
- selectodude 6y ago
  Of course. ESPN is about $10/mo on every single cable bill. Only a third of cable subscribers ever watch ESPN. If I had to pay fair price for it, I’d be spending likely close to $40-50 on ESPN alone. Add that onto ESPN+, BeIN Sports, NBCSN, Fox Sports, etc and I’d absolutely be up near $150 if I actually paid what it cost.
- sircastor 6y ago
  I recall reading somewhere it was something like $6/subscriber, they highest of any channel, and every subscriber pays to support the channel for those who utilize it.
  - dexterdog 6y ago
    I thought it was more than that, but you may be right. Regardless if it goes a la carte the price would have to be more than double that because at least half of the people would drop it. Their whole business model is based on the forced purchase in partnership with the cable companies and it is absolutely not sustainable for the future.
nickik 6y ago
I just pay directly for NBA streaming, I don't care about the others.