Streaming remain most popular destination for TV

[Juan]

How is this possible? ESPN isn't getting $40-60 per month from cable and satellite subs. Heck, I am only paying $65 per month for YTTV in total. It doesn't cost that much more for ESPN to deliver content via streaming than to a cable company for distribution. Where is the gap? This has always bothered me. Would someone please explain? Seriously.

Cable everyone pays...streaming those who want it pay...much smaller number of subs

 

[Bruce]

Cable everyone pays...

And that is why cable/sat is slowly dying, why should I have to pay for channels/content I will never watch, from the losses they have had, a lot more people feel that way.

streaming those who want it pay...much smaller number of subs

You do understand there is a streaming service that have a lot more subscribers then Traditional Live TV Providers and some that are getting close.

There are about 55 Million Households that subscribe to Traditional Providers, about 13 million to Streaming Live TV Services.

Netflix-74 Million
Disney+- 42 Million
Hulu-44 million
Paramount+-46 Million

So with the rate of loss Providers have, then the gains streaming has, by the end of next year 2 of those 3 ( not hulu) that are under will surpass Traditional Providers.

Then we have FAST Services, Pluto TV is over 72 Million users.

 

[Juan]

And that is why cable/sat is slowly dying, why should I have to pay for channels/content I will never watch, from the losses they have had, a lot more people feel that way.

You do understand there is a streaming service that have a lot more subscribers then Traditional Live TV Providers and some that are getting close.

There are about 55 Million Households that subscribe to Traditional Providers, about 13 million to Streaming Live TV Services.

Netflix-74 Million
Disney+- 42 Million
Hulu-44 million
Paramount+-46 Million

So with the rate of loss Providers have, then the gains streaming has, by the end of next year 2 of those 3 ( not hulu) that are under will surpass Traditional Providers.

Then we have FAST Services, Pluto TV is over 72 Million users.

I think you answered your own question

 

[SamCdbs]

And that is why cable/sat is slowly dying,

You own article disproves that, as linear television continues to be, by far, the most popular form of television, when you add both forms (over the air channels and "cable" channels together). And, if you understand how the poll is structured, you understand that it is not a "what do you like best" poll, but a "what do you watch" poll. Most people pay for linear TV and also supplement that with some streaming.

Literally nothing in the article says that linear TV is "dying".

But again, and I know you won't answer, what makes you think this is some kind of trend? This is not a slow rollout. There is nobody sitting around waiting for streaming to come to their town. It is available everywhere, right now. And the people that want it, have it.

It seems most people want linear TV, the thing that is most watched, supplemented by streaming. Yes, a few people get by with streaming only. You show em.

why should I have to pay for channels/content I will never watch, from the losses they have had, a lot more people feel that way.

This is the vacuous comment I read from the streaming fanboy community. Really? So you watch EVERY SINGLE THING on EVERY SINGLE streaming service you pay for?

My guess is no. What you have done, as a single actor in a vast market, is decided that FOR YOU the cost of streaming service "A" is worth it for the content you like, understanding that there is included in that service a vast amount (almost certainly the majority) of content you will never watch.

Other people, the majority, have decided that there is enough content on a linear provider to justify the price.

See, that is how it works. Other people are going to have different tastes than you do. Your decisions are not the forefront of some universal trend the rest of us just haven't caught onto yet.

When you have a streaming service that bills you only for the content you watch, and not the whole package by the month, get back to us about how you don't pay for content you don't watch.

You do understand there is a streaming service that have a lot more subscribers then Traditional Live TV Providers and some that are getting close.

And?

These are not mutually exclusive subscriptions. MOST streaming subscribers use it as a supplement to the linear television that (see your own article) continues to be the most popular form of television.

Yes, some people have gone streaming only. Most haven't. See above comments. Diverse country. Different choices.

There are about 55 Million Households that subscribe to Traditional Providers, about 13 million to Streaming Live TV Services.

Yep. Wonderfully popular.

 

[ncted]

Thanks for the responses. I appreciate the perspectives. Based on this, it seems clear the streaming services need to spend less on content, especially live sports given how expensive it is.

 

[meStevo]

It is available everywhere, right now. And the people that want it, have it.

Interesting, I thought streaming wasn't ready for ptime time? At least that's what you said over and over in the Sunday Ticket thread. Then again you posted 50+ times iirc that it wouldn't be offered as standalone and we all saw how that turned out.

 

[SamCdbs]

How did it "turn out"? Still don't know.

But the OP has stated that the type of TV that is MOST watched, according to an article of his own choosing, which is to say linear OTA channels and "cable" channels WILL NOT EXIST within a few years.

You on his side, or that of literally everyone who covers the entertainment industry at every brokerage, advisior, etc. ?

 

[Bruce]

You own article disproves that, as linear television continues to be, by far, the most popular form of television, when you add both forms (over the air channels and "cable" channels together). And, if you understand how the poll is structured, you understand that it is not a "what do you like best" poll, but a "what do you watch" poll. Most people pay for linear TV and also supplement that with some streaming.

Why can you not add OTA to streaming instead or also?

It is quite likely if they do not have a paid Live TV service they have a antenna for OTA, both of my kids do at their Homes.

Literally nothing in the article says that linear TV is "dying".

Never said it was, I said Traditional Providers are dying, Live TV will exist in some form, the new trend is adding Live Channels to streaming services.
Paramount , Peacock are already doing it or will soon.
Rumors are Warner/Discovery will be doing the same when they merge content this spring with all the owned channels, like CNN, TBS, Food Network, etc.
And yes, the price is rumored to go up to $19.99 if they do the above.

But Traditional Live TV Providers are dying a slow death.
Look at DirecTV, 13 Million, Uverse has 2 million, DirecTV Stream is rumored to be 1 million, that means the Satellite part is 10 Million and loses 500,000 per quarter.

So even if the number of those leaving do not increase, it will this year and next with the loss of NFLST, that is at least 2 million gone a year, so unprofitable in 3 years, no one left in 5.

Can’t dispute Math.

But again, and I know you won't answer, what makes you think this is some kind of trend? This is not a slow rollout. There is nobody sitting around waiting for streaming to come to their town. It is available everywhere, right now. And the people that want it, have it.

And those getting streaming services increases every quarter, YTTV is up to 6 million, Paramount+ gains 7 million each the last few quarters, Netflix added 9 million this year, even Peacock gained this year.

How many gains has Traditional Live Service have?

It seems most people want linear TV, the thing that is most watched, supplemented by streaming. Yes, a few people get by with streaming only. You show em.

Again math time, 129 Million Households, only 68 million have a Live TV Service ( it used to be 100 million in 2015 , that means 61 million do not, by the end of the year or early next year, more people will not have a Live TV service then do.

This is the vacuous comment I read from the streaming fanboy community. Really? So you watch EVERY SINGLE THING on EVERY SINGLE streaming service you pay for?

Of course not, but the ones I have, I do watch things on them.

Can’t say the same for Live TV, the vast majority of channels I do not watch, all the Discovery owned channels, nothing but I have to pay for them with a Live TV Subscription.

I also do or sub to the streaming service.

This is the few channels I watch-
Big Ten
CNN
CNBC
Fox Business
Fox Sports ( every time I watch this channel is via the app to see the games in 4K or the Fox games in better quality, Fox/FX shows I watch on Hulu).
NBC kinda / I use Peacock for Sunday Night Football and other NBC Shows for the better quality
Same Answer for CBS and ABC
ESPN-Since the MNF games and NHL are on ESPN+ and the Big Ten leaving, the only time I need this channel are for Bowl Games.

My guess is no. What you have done, as a single actor in a vast market, is decided that FOR YOU the cost of streaming service "A" is worth it for the content you like, understanding that there is included in that service a vast amount (almost certainly the majority) of content you will never watch.

Already answered.

Other people, the majority, have decided that there is enough content on a linear provider to justify the price.

Already answered, you are getting quite repetitive.

See, that is how it works. Other people are going to have different tastes than you do. Your decisions are not the forefront of some universal trend the rest of us just haven't caught onto yet.

Of course they, but the common theme is Traditional Providers has less and less subs while streaming has more and more.
As reported every quarter.

When you have a streaming service that bills you only for the content you watch, and not the whole package by the month, get back to us about how you don't pay for content you don't watch.

So does that mean you watch every show, every channel on Live TV since you pay $65 to your landlord.

These are not mutually exclusive subscriptions. MOST streaming subscribers use it as a supplement to the linear television that (see your own article) continues to be the most popular form of television.

One heck of a supplement, the majority of content on Live TV ( now including a lot of sports) and all the exclusive stuff.

In much better quality picture and sound, at a much less expensive price.

Yes, some people have gone streaming only. Most haven't.

Two years at the most, total flip towards streaming, only a few million difference, cannot beat math.

 

[Bruce]

How did it "turn out"? Still don't know.

CNBC has said it will be stand alone, remember when you called it a article from a blogger,

But the OP has stated that the type of TV that is MOST watched, according to an article of his own choosing, which is to say linear OTA channels and "cable" channels WILL NOT EXIST within a few years.

The article came from Nielson not from some cord cutting site, Nielson who does the ratings for everyone, if you have a problem with what it says, take it up with them.

At least I posted the link to it instead of just giving my opinion .

You on his side, or that of literally everyone who covers the entertainment industry at every brokerage, advisior, etc. ?

And they all say we are in a transition period towards streaming, post a link if untrue.

 

[Jimbo]

Why can you not add OTA to streaming instead or also?

It is quite likely if they do not have a paid Live TV service they have a antenna for OTA, both of my kids do at their Homes.

Never said it was, I said Traditional Providers are dying, Live TV will exist in some form, the new trend is adding Live Channels to streaming services.
Paramount , Peacock are already doing it or will soon.
Rumors are Warner/Discovery will be doing the same when they merge content this spring with all the owned channels, like CNN, TBS, Food Network, etc.
And yes, the price is rumored to go up to $19.99 if they do the above.

But Traditional Live TV Providers are dying a slow death.
Look at DirecTV, 13 Million, Uverse has 2 million, DirecTV Stream is rumored to be 1 million, that means the Satellite part is 10 Million and loses 500,000 per quarter.

So even if the number of those leaving do not increase, it will this year and next with the loss of NFLST, that is at least 2 million gone a year, so unprofitable in 3 years, no one left in 5.

Can’t dispute Math.

And those getting streaming services increases every quarter, YTTV is up to 6 million, Paramount+ gains 7 million each the last few quarters, Netflix added 9 million this year, even Peacock gained this year.

How many gains has Traditional Live Service have?

Again math time, 129 Million Households, only 68 million have a Live TV Service ( it used to be 100 million in 2015 , that means 61 million do not, by the end of the year or early next year, more people will not have a Live TV service then do.

Of course not, but the ones I have, I do watch things on them.

Can’t say the same for Live TV, the vast majority of channels I do not watch, all the Discovery owned channels, nothing but I have to pay for them with a Live TV Subscription.

I also do or sub to the streaming service.

This is the few channels I watch-
Big Ten
CNN
CNBC
Fox Business
Fox Sports ( every time I watch this channel is via the app to see the games in 4K or the Fox games in better quality, Fox/FX shows I watch on Hulu).
NBC kinda / I use Peacock for Sunday Night Football and other NBC Shows for the better quality
Same Answer for CBS and ABC
ESPN-Since the MNF games and NHL are on ESPN+ and the Big Ten leaving, the only time I need this channel are for Bowl Games.

Already answered.

Already answered, you are getting quite repetitive.

Of course they, but the common theme is Traditional Providers has less and less subs while streaming has more and more.
As reported every quarter.

So does that mean you watch every show, every channel on Live TV since you pay $65 to your landlord.

One heck of a supplement, the majority of content on Live TV ( now including a lot of sports) and all the exclusive stuff.

In much better quality picture and sound, at a much less expensive price.

Two years at the most, total flip towards streaming, only a few million difference, cannot beat math.

Someone please SAVE this post for 2 years.

Btw, Since when is Linier TV not Traditional TV ?

 

[Jimbo]

CNBC has said it will be stand alone, remember when you called it a article from a blogger,

The article came from Nielson not from some cord cutting site, Nielson who does the ratings for everyone, if you have a problem with what it says, take it up with them.

At least I posted the link to it instead of just giving my opinion .

And they all say we are in a transition period towards streaming, post a link if untrue.

The "We still don't know" comment was about Sunday Ticket and YTTV ...
And HE's Right ... we really know Nothing for sure at this point.

 

[Jimbo]

And they all say we are in a transition period towards streaming, post a link if untrue.

Yup, were in a Transition, it may take 10 years, but we'll get there ...

 

[Bruce]

The "We still don't know" comment was about Sunday Ticket and YTTV ...
And HE's Right ... we really know Nothing for sure at this point.

Google themselves and the NFL have both said it will be offered as a stand alone and as part of YTTV, that is what that post was in reference to.

Beyond that, we do not know anything else, price, dvr, how many streams, discount if you have YTTV, etc, still a lot we do not know, I do agree with you.

 

[Jimbo]

Google themselves and the NFL have both said it will be offered as a stand alone and as part of YTTV, that is what that post was in reference to.

Beyond that, we do not know anything else, price, dvr, how many streams, discount if you have YTTV, etc, still a lot we do not know, I do agree with you.

isn't that what was said ?
We really don't know much at this point ?

At least we agree on something ...

 

[Bruce]

Yup, were in a Transition, it may take 10 years, but we'll get there ...

Certain Providers it will take about 10 years if they wish, it all depends on profitability.

I can see Comcast and Charter lasting that long because they both bundle with broadband and have a lot more subscribers, Comcast to my amazement has 16 million video subs still.

But Dish and DirecTV, no way, DirecTV was losing 2 million a year before losing ST, analysts are predicting a 3-4 million loss this year, if so DirecTV will be hitting the point of no return quite quickly,

Dish, their last Satellite were launched in 2011, planned 15 year lifespan, for some reason DirecTV’s Sats also seem to go longer, Dish’s sats not so, average lifespan for all of theirs has been about 13 years.

 

[Jimbo]

Certain Providers it will take about 10 years if they wish, it all depends on profitability.

I can see Comcast and Charter lasting that long because they both bundle with broadband and have a lot more subscribers, Comcast to my amazement has 16 million video subs still.

But Dish and DirecTV, no way, DirecTV was losing 2 million a year before losing ST, analysts are predicting a 3-4 million loss this year, if so DirecTV will be hitting the point of no return quite quickly,

Dish, their last Satellite were launched in 2011, planned 15 year lifespan, for some reason DirecTV’s Sats also seem to go longer, Dish’s sats not so, average lifespan for all of theirs has been about 13 years.

The D* Sats that are up there, may make it to 2030-32 there abouts.
I think when they say its gonna last 15 years, means 13-18 .... like when will you run out of gas. Don't know for sure, but you got an idea.

 

[Ronnie-]

The "We still don't know" comment was about Sunday Ticket and YTTV ...
And HE's Right ... we really know Nothing for sure at this point.

We do.
The particular argument point in that has been disproven several times with links to show exactly how it will be offered.

Not at a price, but how.

 

[Juan]

We do.
The particular argument point in that has been disproven several times with links to show exactly how it will be offered.

Not at a price, but how.

Google paid 2 billion dollars for a money losing package of NFL games..it will be real interesting how they intend to turn a profit when directv couldn't for almost 30 years...yes directv made tons of money off of additional subscriptions but the NFL Sunday ticket is well known money loser..some would call a black hole that sucks cash

 

[Bruce]

Google paid 2 billion dollars for a money losing package of NFL games..it will be real interesting how they intend to turn a profit when directv couldn't for almost 30 years...yes directv made tons of money off of additional subscriptions but the NFL Sunday ticket is well known money loser..some would call a black hole that sucks cash

 

[Juan]

View attachment 160437

Yes really...they used NFL Sunday ticket as a loss leader to gain subs for directv..it worked a loooong time but the NFL just was asking too much money this time around

From a NFL profit point of view it was a brilliant decision by the NFL..we will just wait and see what google does with it...they usually dump bad investments in a couple years but nobody really knows what will happen until prices and packages are announced..