Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The future of television
Author Message
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #41
RE: The future of television
(04-11-2013 03:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 02:39 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 08:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If those numbers represent the "must haves" AMC might be at a price point of $10 to $12 a month.
And its even worse than that. When you start marketing pure a la carte, whether on cable or internet streaming or both, the churn rate kicks way up. One thing the aggregation of channels into tiers does is that when a "must watch" show on one channel is over and frees up the time that was devoted to watching that, then there are a bunch of hooks in the water to try to capture that time to watch something else, so people's time spent viewing a particular channel over a year can be more volatile than the time spent viewing some programming on a broad tier.

But I've got one streaming subscription I keep going continuously, because I subscribe annually, Netflix which I keep running most of the time but will turn off when I am particularly busy or catching up on content on some other sites, and then three subscription sites that I have the subscription cancelled or postponed (depending on the site) more often than the subscription is active.

Which is taking it from a la carte by channel to a la carte by channel by month.

Or my friend who cares nothing about any sport except college football who downgrades his satellite subscription to the cheapest bare bones every January and upgrades every August.

Churn really increases customer acquistion costs.

That triggers another thought.

Wall Street loves return on investment. One of the big radio conglomerates (Clear Channel maybe?) several years ago dumped the radio rights to the Dodgers. The explanation was they made slightly better profit on the Dodgers than their other programming but the cost of acquistion was so high that their return rate didn't justify the investment, they were trying to raise their ROI for the analysts.

If ESPN or AMC has to have $20 subscriptions just to get the same profit they have now, their stock price will fall (in ESPN's case ameliorated by being part of a major conglomerate) because they are spending so much more to get the same dollars of profit, that means they will have significant investor pressure to push the price even higher to increase the amount of profit.

Cable TV, the internet and phone service are all merging. Right now, Apple and a few of the content providers are the only ones making a lot of money. Its going to be real hard to pick the winners and losers. But betting on no change to the existing models is probably a really bad bet.
04-11-2013 03:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,109
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #42
RE: The future of television
(04-11-2013 03:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  Cable TV, the internet and phone service are all merging.
Yes, once you get to a certain bandwidth, its mostly just bits and zeroes being moved around on slightly different switch-to-the-home infrastructure.

A long time stereotypical result from the Industrial Organization field of Economics was that in oligopolies, its the market share of the fourth alternative on the market where you see the big difference between a nice cozy "tight" oligopoly and an outcome a lot closer to a competitive market. With landline cable, two satellite options, and one or two IP Television options (eg FIOS), several parts of the country are actually presently in the process of crossing over from a tight oligopoly.

Quote: Right now, Apple and a few of the content providers are the only ones making a lot of money. Its going to be real hard to pick the winners and losers. But betting on no change to the existing models is probably a really bad bet.
Yes, two big mistakes are too imagine that the current way things are done is going be largely in place ten years from now, and imagining that change is going to hit in a sudden convulsion rather than a process that starts from a small base but grows at a rapid enough rate that it picks up more and more steam as the decade goes by.

The entrenched vested interests are going to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming, and will surely find ways to slow the changes down, but will just as surely not be able to keep things at the status quo.
04-11-2013 04:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilkie01 Offline
Cards Prognosticater
Jersey Retired

Posts: 26,753
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1072
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #43
RE: The future of television
That pretty much describes the history of man-kind and the world. 07-coffee3
04-11-2013 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #44
RE: The future of television
(04-11-2013 04:47 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  That pretty much describes the history of man-kind and the world. 07-coffee3

But the process used to take centuries. Time is speeding up.
04-11-2013 05:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,904
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #45
RE: The future of television
Bringing this back full circle to realignment all of these reasons are why the Big 10 and SEC are only looking to add AAU (if possible) large state land grant universities who happen to be the flagship institutions of their respective states. It's hard to go wrong long term even if technology and broadcast delivery systems change radically as long as you have the best schools in your conference.

While some may question the additions of Maryland and Rutgers to the Big 10 should the model for revenue change, the fact that both are essentially the only large state school of their states will always be a big plus. Ditto Missouri for the SEC.

Since nobody may be able to predict the systems and models that will shape sports broadcasting 3, let alone 10 years from now, the best approach to realignment is simply strength of brand, not nationally for the sport, but internally for the state being sought.
04-11-2013 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dasville Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,796
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 246
I Root For: UofL
Location:
Post: #46
RE: The future of television
Cellular boss speaks on this subject:

http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/ver...200338345/


Quote:McAdam said that when the NFL announced it would stream the Super Bowl via Verizon wireless, “some of my broadcaster friends said you just became the most hated man in America. That was not our intent.”
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2013 06:55 PM by Dasville.)
04-11-2013 06:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
orangefan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,208
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 354
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #47
RE: The future of television
(04-11-2013 06:53 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Cellular boss speaks on this subject:

http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/ver...200338345/


Quote:McAdam said that when the NFL announced it would stream the Super Bowl via Verizon wireless, “some of my broadcaster friends said you just became the most hated man in America. That was not our intent.”

Quote: He compared cable bundles to bundled services on cell phone plans. “As more and more smartphones were out there, (customers) said why are you making me buy a text bundle, why are you making me buy a voice bundle? We said, you know, you’re right, so we did away with that.

I call bullish!t. Verizon is all about bundling voice with text with data. You can't buy any of these a la carte. Same with Fios, which is all about bundling phone with broadband with cable. He has no credibility to lecture anyone on this.
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2013 07:34 PM by orangefan.)
04-11-2013 07:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,109
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #48
RE: The future of television
(04-11-2013 07:33 PM)orangefan Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 06:53 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Cellular boss speaks on this subject: ...
Quote: He compared cable bundles to bundled services on cell phone plans. “As more and more smartphones were out there, (customers) said why are you making me buy a text bundle, why are you making me buy a voice bundle? We said, you know, you’re right, so we did away with that.

I call bullish!t. Verizon is all about bundling voice with text with data. You can't buy any of these a la carte. Same with Fios, which is all about bundling phone with broadband with cable. He has no credibility to lecture anyone on this.
Yes, its his job to exaggerate the significance of whatever tweaking Verizon has done to their plan offerings.

This also gets to the Domain Name Server congestion that takes place during prime times, extending after midnight for the east coast ... the type of video streaming package transport insisted on in most video streaming contract is not like the http protocol, which transports the whole video stream as a single file. It transports the video file in chunks, so that only five to ten minutes worth is in buffer at any one point in time. A sophisticated user can still capture it, but its harder to pirate than a YouTube http video file transfer, which would normally be just a matter of sorting your temp folder by time of creation, and then renaming and copying the video file that looks like the right size at the right time of day.

But those chunks mean a lot more DNS traffic to stream video than would be necessary if it was streamed as a single file, and so the congestion that results at Domain Name Servers during peak internet search times can mean substantially degraded set top box streaming video performance, as I found out when I switched to Google's 8.8.8.8 domain name server and found out what I had been missing. Its not like its in the interest of our cable provider, Time Warner, to really eliminate that DNS congestion. 1080p and 480p video falling down to 360p heavily compressed video makes them look better versus Netflix, HuluPlus or Vudu.
(This post was last modified: 04-12-2013 08:37 AM by BruceMcF.)
04-12-2013 08:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,320
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 446
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #49
RE: The future of television
(04-11-2013 06:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Bringing this back full circle to realignment all of these reasons are why the Big 10 and SEC are only looking to add AAU (if possible) large state land grant universities who happen to be the flagship institutions of their respective states. It's hard to go wrong long term even if technology and broadcast delivery systems change radically as long as you have the best schools in your conference.

While some may question the additions of Maryland and Rutgers to the Big 10 should the model for revenue change, the fact that both are essentially the only large state school of their states will always be a big plus. Ditto Missouri for the SEC.

Since nobody may be able to predict the systems and models that will shape sports broadcasting 3, let alone 10 years from now, the best approach to realignment is simply strength of brand, not nationally for the sport, but internally for the state being sought.

JRSec, you might want to change your comments considering that the SEC and the Big Ten are both interested in North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, none of which are land grant universities, but are flagship universities of their respective states.
(This post was last modified: 04-13-2013 01:57 PM by DawgNBama.)
04-13-2013 01:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,904
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #50
RE: The future of television
(04-13-2013 01:57 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 06:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Bringing this back full circle to realignment all of these reasons are why the Big 10 and SEC are only looking to add AAU (if possible) large state land grant universities who happen to be the flagship institutions of their respective states. It's hard to go wrong long term even if technology and broadcast delivery systems change radically as long as you have the best schools in your conference.

While some may question the additions of Maryland and Rutgers to the Big 10 should the model for revenue change, the fact that both are essentially the only large state school of their states will always be a big plus. Ditto Missouri for the SEC.

Since nobody may be able to predict the systems and models that will shape sports broadcasting 3, let alone 10 years from now, the best approach to realignment is simply strength of brand, not nationally for the sport, but internally for the state being sought.

JRSec, you might want to change your comments considering that the SEC and the Big Ten are both interested in North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, none of which are land grant universities, but are flagship universities of their respective states.

Distinction noted, but there aren't many that would fit all the criteria and the statement was not made to indicate that they had to, just that it would be preferred. AAU and Flagship is more than enough qualification.
04-13-2013 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,109
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #51
RE: The future of television
(04-13-2013 01:57 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  JRSec, you might want to change your comments considering that the SEC and the Big Ten are both interested in North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, none of which are land grant universities, but are flagship universities of their respective states.
Land grant, sea grant, space grant, whatevers ~ I don't think JRSec was suggesting the Big Ten would want to kick out that school up north if it could, given that MSU is the land grant university in Michigan. Its more "Public and Land Grant" as in the larger members of the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, which of course UNC, UVA, GTech and UTexas are all members.
(This post was last modified: 04-13-2013 05:48 PM by BruceMcF.)
04-13-2013 05:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.