Streaming remain most popular destination for TV

[Ronnie-]

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

Thanks for quoting my post for an unrelated point sir.

 

[Juan]

Thanks for quoting my post for an unrelated point sir.

Really?.. you said that it was finally settled that Sunday Ticket would go streaming when directv never bid on it..I just explained the price was too high for directv to use it as a loss leader...oh well my apologies

 

[navychop]

some would call a black hole that sucks cash

I think we’ve all dated one of those….

 

[navychop]

Makes me wonder if there’s an “undocumented” feature in the Hopper + that might change the game.

 

[Bruce]

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..

 

[Bruce]

Makes me wonder if there’s an “undocumented” feature in the Hopper + that might change the game.

If it did, it would also have issues.

 

[Ronnie-]

Really?.. you said that it was finally settled that Sunday Ticket would go streaming when directv never bid on it..I just explained the price was too high for directv to use it as a loss leader...oh well my apologies

Interesting interpretation of what I posted.

Obviously completely made up , but interesting nonetheless.

 

[Jimbo]

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.

Yes, we know how ....
Do we Officially know anything about Commercial Establishments yet ?
Not Really, we have speculation.

Price, we know Nothing ...
Really wish we did, so we can all brace for the yearly SHOCK ....

And so far we have Nothing, just speculation.

 

[Ronnie-]

Yes, we know how ....
Do we Officially know anything about Commercial Establishments yet ?
Not Really, we have speculation.

Price, we know Nothing ...
Really wish we did, so we can all brace for the yearly SHOCK ....

And so far we have Nothing, just speculation.

I don’t think anyone has claimed to know any of those things. Except how.


Far too early to know anything else, and what hasn’t been announced.

 

[Bilbo1]

The debate around sports here is an odd one…

First off, the assumption that people won’t pay for a stand alone ESPN product misses the point that people may be able to cancel a $80+ per month service for a $25 per month service. Sign me up. Keep in mind that about half of people watch ESPN once a month and 25 percent once a week.

RSNs are the most watched channel on a cable system. That’s why they are there. The same argument holds up for RSNs… at some point, people will be able to get that content at a substantially lower price than a cable service, so they will drop the cable service.

Also, the argument that ESPN is the main cost of a cable service is pound wise but penny foolish. I have 75 channels I receive through YTTV that costs them between $0.10 and $3 (e.g. Fox News/CNN, Nickelodeon) each per month that I don’t watch. I bet the aggregate cost for those unwatched channels are well above YTTV’s cost of ESPN, maybe even what I’d have to pay for stand alone ESPN. I’d love to see those channels go.

We aren’t at a point where most people can substitute streaming services for a linear provider, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t getting close. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ncted]

Verizon sheds pay TV customers, but broadband adds are up

The loss of Fios TV customers was more than covered by customer growth at Verizon's broadband Internet services.

thedesk.net

 

[SamCdbs]

Again, why are we in a "transition"? No one is sitting around waiting for streaming to come to their town. Those that want it, have it. What we know is pretty certain.

- Some, but actually a relatively small minority, have gone "streaming only". Most of these people, over and over, want to tell you how much money they have.

- Most people, however, have taken streaming for what it is intended to be, a supplement. The best analogy to it is, it is what HBO or Showtime were in the 80s or 90s. It is a supplement.

- Because, unlike linear TV, these companies don't really tell us who is watching, its hard to tell, but when they do release things like "most popular" and give you the minutes watched (an odd way to figure, but whatever) and you do the math, its really not that many people for any one show.

- Linear television remains mega-profitable. The companies that provide it to us (Gray, Sinclair, NexStar, Hearst, etc. and especially the O&O divisions of the Big Four) are mega-profitable, and the idea that they are going away "in a few years" is just silly. The stock market says otherwise.

- Meanwhile, streaming services, with two exceptions, have never made a cent. Unlike DBS or cable, it really doesn't have a large upfront cost to amortize (the satellites or the cable and all of that) nor much in the way of upkeep (installers, repairs, etc.) No, streaming services actually have their customers paying for the delivery (via paying for the internet service) and paying for the equipment (smart TV, etc.). No, pretty much its only cost is content. Which does not really have a shelf life. More and more and more content. Produced at a loss. No one can answer the question "what does streaming have to do to make money", because no one knows the answer. More and more content. More and more losses.

 

[Bruce]

- Meanwhile, streaming services, with two exceptions, have never made a cent. Unlike DBS or cable, it really doesn't have a large upfront cost to amortize (the satellites or the cable and all of that) nor much in the way of upkeep (installers, repairs, etc.) No, streaming services actually have their customers paying for the delivery (via paying for the internet service) and paying for the equipment (smart TV, etc.). No, pretty much its only cost is content. Which does not really have a shelf life. More and more and more content. Produced at a loss. No one can answer the question "what does streaming have to do to make money", because no one knows the answer. More and more content. More and more losses.

Ok, since you want to talk about losses.

When AT&T bought DirecTV, it paid $48.5 billion ($67 billion accounting for debt) to acquire the business.

When they did their deal with TPG, the new value of DirecTV was at $16.25 billion.

That means it has lost, as a provider, at least $32 Billion dollars or $49 Billion including debt since 2015 in value, when cord cutting started.

WarnerMedia Parent AT&T Sells DirecTV Stake To Private Equity Firm TPG

AT&T Inks Deal For DirecTV With Private Equity Firm TPG; WarnerMedia Parent Will Retain 70%, Net $7.8 Billion In Cash

deadline.com

 

[Bruce]

Again, why are we in a "transition"? No one is sitting around waiting for streaming to come to their town. Those that want it, have it. What we know is pretty certain.

And more everyday, 4th quarter reports are starting to come out, Dish and Verizon, already over 300,000 have dropped Live TV.

- Some, but actually a relatively small minority, have gone "streaming only". Most of these people, over and over, want to tell you how much money they have.

What do you think is small, 100 Million Households had a Live TV service just 9 years ago, now 68 million ( including YTTV and the likes), that means 32 Million do not get Live TV at all and probably went Streaming via Netflix, Disney, etc and then 13 million get Live TV via YTTV, Hulu Live, etc, also streaming.

So that is 45 Million Streaming only in one form or another.

- Most people, however, have taken streaming for what it is intended to be, a supplement. The best analogy to it is, it is what HBO or Showtime were in the 80s or 90s. It is a supplement.

not a supplement for 45 million

- Because, unlike linear TV, these companies don't really tell us who is watching, its hard to tell, but when they do release things like "most popular" and give you the minutes watched (an odd way to figure, but whatever) and you do the math, its really not that many people for any one show.

Ratings for streaming shows are out all the time, google is your friend.

- Linear television remains mega-profitable. The companies that provide it to us (Gray, Sinclair, NexStar, Hearst, etc. and especially the O&O divisions of the Big Four) are mega-profitable, and the idea that they are going away "in a few years" is just silly. The stock market says otherwise.

Profits are getting less and less every year

 

[Bilbo1]

Again, why are we in a "transition"? No one is sitting around waiting for streaming to come to their town. Those that want it, have it. What we know is pretty certain.

Streaming services are a relatively new product being developed as they have been rolled out. The transition is as much streaming services responding to customer desires as it is customer adoption.

The transition involves streaming services finding the right mix of content and distribution format to attract an increasingly broader range of customers.

On the customer side, adoption won’t be immediate. Just because a service exists doesn’t mean everyone is going to subscribe day one. People also aren’t going to immediately drop linear services either. Over time, people will add streaming and reduce linear.

It’s kind of like a new restaurant opening up down the street… you may try it, eventually. You may start going there more often, but that doesn’t mean you’ll stop going to older restaurants you used to go to immediately. One day you may find you have stopped going to the old restaurant and visit the new one more often.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SamCdbs]

not a supplement for 45 million

You show em.

Ratings for streaming shows are out all the time, google is your friend.

Then link (Amazon's woeful NFL ratings are the exception) us some.

Profits are getting less and less every year

That is really just not true.

 

[Bruce]

You show em.

Then link (Amazon's woeful NFL ratings are the exception) us some.



That is really just not true.

Amazing how you totally ignore the post about how much money DirecTV has lost since cord cutting started.

 

[meStevo]

I mean, Google is not hard. But some treat this topic like the old War Zone forum and discard facts when they're inconvenient too (like Sunday Ticket being offered a la carte) so maybe it is.

‘Jack Ryan’ Upends ‘Wednesday’ on Streaming Series Chart

'Glass Onion' debuts at No. 1 overall for the week leading up to Christmas.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

‘Glass Onion’ Becomes Third Most-Viewed Film In A Week On Nielsen U.S. Streaming Charts; ‘Jack Ryan’ Overthrows ‘Wednesday’

In a very expected turn of events, Netflix’s Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery debuted atop Nielsen’s U.S. streaming charts for the week of December 19 to December 25. Despite only three days…

deadline.com

Or are we back to not liking Nielsen again, it's hard to keep track sometimes.

Top Ten | Nielsen

Discover what consumers are watching, playing, and listening to around the world with Nielsen’s Top 10 lists with relevant audience metrics.

www.nielsen.com

Up next, some goalpost moving I presume? Selectively quote and rail on something unrelated? Maybe pretend they are just rankings and ignore they're based on Nielsen data?

 

[Juan]

Amazing how you totally ignore the post about how much money DirecTV has lost since cord cutting started.

They didn't lose money it just their profit was reduced...they are still making boatloads of money

 

[Ronnie-]

They didn't lose money it just their profit was reduced..

Profits are getting less and less every year

Which seems to be exactly what he said.