Does live TV even matter anymore?

Think back to 2003. Yes, it was 20 years ago. In some ways it seems like 100 years ago. Back in 2003, your cell phone got most of its use actually making calls. You checked your email once a day or so, and while you were impressed by the amazing speed of your brand-new always-on internet, it was probably about 1 megabit (or less.) Chances are you spent a lot more time interacting with the people near you, and, when you watched TV, you watched live TV.

A world without on demand​


That’s right, on-demand was extremely new back then, as was the DVR. Most people had some idea that these technologies existed, but unless you were a seriously early adopter, you never used these things. Live TV was king, and you were just fine with that.

The earth has gone around the sun a few times since then, and so I ask, “does live TV still matter?” An increasing amount of TV is consumed either from a DVR or from some sort of on-demand source like Netflix or Hulu. It’s actually possible that you may not watch any live TV in an average week, especially if you’re under 50.

Live TV sure matters to the people who make it​


Local broadcasters and broadcast networks still haven’t got that message, though. Those old titans, the ones who ruled the world in 1963, 1983, and even 2003 haven’t quite gotten the message that for the most part, live TV actually doesn’t matter. News is important. Sports are important. A rapidly decreasing number of relevant reality programs are important to watch as they unfold. A very small number of scripted programs demand that you stop and watch as soon as they air, but past that, people are just as happy to watch on their own schedules, especially if this means that they can skip commercials.

What does this mean for the future?​


It means trouble, if you’re a traditional broadcaster. For the last five years or so, local broadcasters have been gutting their news and local interest resources, importing canned programs from their increasingly massive corporate owners. It means that the world of local programming is teetering on a precipice and station owners don’t seem to notice or care.

I personally feel that the traditional broadcast model just needs one little push to drop into chaos. Those in the desirable 18-34 demographic don’t watch a lot of TV already, and personally I’m worried that a small push could cause them to lose interest altogether.

But here’s the interesting thing…​


I have to wonder if the major broadcast networks even care. I have this conspiracy theory floating in my head that the big boys, the CBS’s, ABC,’s, etc. of the world, would love to divest themselves of the old network model. Local network affiliates were important to them when over-the-air was the only game in town. Today, these companies would be just as happy to be cable/satellite-delivered only, but they can’t do it as long as those pesky network contracts are in place. Those contracts mean that network programming is only available from network affiliates. It stops the broadcast networks from offering national programming over cable or satellite. That limitation has been in place since the very beginning of broadcasting.

You’ll notice, of course, that all the big broadcasters already offer content directly over streaming. I have a feeling this is just a sign of things to come. If broadcast networks let their affiliates fail, they could be free to do whatever they want. This would include producing salacious programming of the sort one only finds on HBO or Showtime now. They could go whole-hog on a national subscription model. Think about it – CBS, ABC, and NBC all have streaming apps. CBS even lets you watch live local TV from theirs.

So I would say “yes,” live TV does matter, but not the same way that it used to. Live TV is the bargaining chip, the last thing holding the old broadcast model together. It should be interesting to see what happens to live TV in the next couple of years. Even if you’re not actually interested in watching it, it’s going to affect you.

The post Does live TV even matter anymore? appeared first on The Solid Signal Blog.

Continue reading...
 
If you read this, I have been saying all this for years now here in the Cord Cutters Forum, now that Warner has announced they are putting their Live Channels on MAX ( which I posted months ago), ESPN being available streaming, etc, etc.

Traditional Live TV Providers have maybe 5 years left.
 
Traditional Live TV Providers have maybe 5 years left.
You say that as if many of the streaming services weren't losing money/subscribers in a big way.

Of course if the ability to produce new and compelling content has gone away, what's the point?
 
You say that as if many of the streaming services weren't losing money/subscribers in a big way.

Of course if the ability to produce new and compelling content has gone away, what's the point?
All start ups lose money at first, it took DirecTV 6 years to become profitable

Now it losses profits at a $1 Billion dollar a year pace, confirmed by AT&T’s COO

Dish Network took 9 Years to become profitable.

Yet, in Q1 2022, profits for that quarter were $400 Million, Q1 2023 profits were $200 Million.

Disney and Paramount expect to turn profitable next year, but there are some that never will, Peacock only will if they merge with someone, Warner/Discovery I believe, have some mighty headwinds due to their debt, which is 4 times the revenues they bring in.

Of course Netflix and Hulu are profitable and they are streaming companies.
 
All start ups lose money at first, it took DirecTV 6 years to become profitable
The market is nowhere near the same as it was back then. There are many competitors all vying for the same business and more than a few of those aren't legitimate.

The services that are profitable may be faking it by living off stored fat (content previously produced and charged).

Now is not a good time to look at numbers since the TV watching season hasn't really started yet (assuming that it will be a thing in the future).
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamCdbs
50% of viewing time is hardly insignificant.

Somebody ought to tell these people that local TV is dying.

Tegna Inc. - Wikipedia. $631M PROFIT
Sinclair Broadcast Group - Wikipedia $245M PROFIT
Nexstar Media Group - Wikipedia $808M PROFIT

Of course the local stations in the big cities belong to the networks themselves, and contribute yet more billions to their bottom lines. Covering their losses from streaming.

The Market has spoken. The average person spends 50% of their TV time watching traditional "live TV" (linear TV). 37% of their time on streaming, of which about a third is YouTube and FAST, which is free. Not enough people want what paid streaming has to cover its bills. And its only significant bill is content, which is burned daily, unlike other ventures that took time to become profitable, as they had actual hard physical assets to build like satellites or cables. Heck, streaming makes the customer pay for the delivery system (internet service and the smart TV). We know that streaming is unprofitable. That isn't changing. The Market has spoken.

Local TV will remain a part of most people's lives for as long as they live. It is a highly profitable industry, granted a neo-monopoly by the government, to provide what people actually want. Networks will remain as well, even the grossly mismanaged Disney, for many decades to come. Cable channels, except of course for ESPN or anything else they are stupid enough to sell a la carte, will likewise remain mega-profitable. A streaming service, filling the niche HBO once filled (a supplement to the basic channels) besides Netflix might make it, but it seems unlikely.
 
TEGNA achieved net income of $200 million on a GAAP basis, or $97 million on a non-GAAP basis
Back when they were reporting, DIRECTV had more than a few non-GAAP numbers that they put forth. Many consider non-GAAP to be non-factual as all that can safely be said is that they aren't accounted for in the conventional way..
 
Back when they were reporting, DIRECTV had more than a few non-GAAP numbers that they put forth. Many consider non-GAAP to be non-factual as all that can safely be said is that they aren't accounted for in the conventional way..
What does that have to do with the actual numbers.
 
What does that have to do with the actual numbers.
GAAP is actual numbers according to conventional standards (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice). Non-GAAP is any other scheme that somebody in Accounting or Management once thought was somehow better. In many cases, the non-GAAP methodology is not revealed.

If the GAAP number is significantly different from the non-GAAP number, you have to wonder what they're doing differently to depart from GAAP. Some companies choose not to make their GAAP numbers readily available and only offer non-GAAP numbers.
 
GAAP is actual numbers according to conventional standards (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice). Non-GAAP is any other scheme that somebody in Accounting or Management once thought was somehow better. In many cases, the non-GAAP methodology is not revealed.

If the GAAP number is significantly different from the non-GAAP number, you have to wonder what they're doing differently to depart from GAAP. Some companies choose not to make their GAAP numbers readily available and only offer non-GAAP numbers.
I know all that, why are you posting it, all I was doing was correcting his inaccurate numbers.
 

What does “backhaul” mean?

STREAMING SATURDAY: BUZZR

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)