Netflix Chief Predicts Death Of Broadcast TV By 2030

[FredLeonard]

Which is exactly why, with the single exception of live sports, all my household's TV watching is done via downloads.

I think you are on to something.

Tivo (and other DVRs) are already obsolete. DVRs in Europe are able to read encoded information and know when shows actually stop and start and automatically make adjustments. Not here. Just one more way we are denied technology and benefits available elsewhere.

If Tivo and the rest want to stay in business, they need to include encoding adjustment AND incorporate downloading (not just on-demand streaming access).

The Netflix guy errs when he equates "broadcasting" with terrestrial or OTA television. Cable (and satellite) channels are also broadcasting. I've long had the suspicion that broadcasters feel that broadcasting puts them in control - like the intro to the old "Outer Limits" - it's an ego trip.

There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear.

NPR likes to brag about their "driveway moments." Isn't it cool; we can get people to stay in their car and keep listening. For broadcasters, deep down on-demand is the inmates taking over the asylum. The broadcaster mindset is like your mother saying, "We eat what's set before us and we like it." The viewer is never right. We know best.

 

[landtuna]

Tivo (and other DVRs) are already obsolete. DVRs in Europe are able to read encoded information and know when shows actually stop and start and automatically make adjustments. Not here. Just one more way we are denied technology and benefits available elsewhere.

I thought Tivo already made run time adjustments (assuming the broadcaster included the changes in their bitstream). I have an OTA DVR which does not have that capability but found it much more efficient just to download shows off the Internet (mainly for the wifey).

Including a download capability in Tivo would be a nice added feature.

 

[davideduardo]

If Tivo and the rest want to stay in business, they need to include encoding adjustment AND incorporate downloading (not just on-demand streaming access).

TiVo makes adjustments if the source properly encodes. I find that shows that are delayed by sports events going into overtime are generally adjusted. When they are not, it appears to be the fault of the original source.

TiVo will download or stream, via apps, Netflix, Amazon Instant Video and an assortment of other, similar sources. In the cases where a video can not be downloaded, it is because the copyright holder has only granted streaming rights to the material but not ownership. Again, the decision is based on the original rights holder's policies.

In the case of Amazon's offerings, much content can be bought and downloaded or, at the user's option, streamed. Streamed material is, logically between 40% to 60% less expensive on a per-event basis.

 

[davideduardo]

People have been talking about the death of over-the-air TV since cable went to 35 channels back in the 80s. Even today, with hundreds of choices, the overwhelming majority of viewing is still on the local, over-the-air stations.

Check the numbers. Cable channel viewing can often exceed the viewing of local OTA stations.

For example, if you look at the share of the "Big 6" networks, the average prime time share is under or around a 30. Add in a couple of additional shares for local independents and you still have two-thirds of the viewing in prime time going to non-local cable and satellite distributed channels.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I don't get adjustments for sports delays.

However, both my machines are old. I had to send back a brand new TiVo because it required a high-speed connection rather than a phone line. The phone line is sufficient for listings but not necessarily for software upgrades. They had a part they could have sent me, so maybe it would have worked. Instead, it was suggested I try Amazon.

And I know why this machine was available. Rewinding and fast-forwarding don't necessarily mean you always go in the right direction. The button that lets you go back a few seconds won't go beyond a certain point in some cases. This machine is defective but I can work around this problem.

 

[Casey]

For those in remote parts of the country satellite is the only delivery method for high-speed internet, so it won't be going away.

Satellite is improving however. The next generation of satellites are expected to have high enough capacity to deliver video streaming affordably (to both the subscriber and provider). 16 years from now... streaming video over satellite won't be a concern.

 

[Morgan Wick]

This was my response.

The thing is, the "adaptation" some of us are predicting means the death of OTA Television as we now know it. OTA broadcast network television could be as dead as network radio broadcasts of scripted comedies and dramas were by the late 1950's. Sure, radio didn't "die" when it switched from programs to programming, but it was totally unrecognizable. The major networks will cease to function as the primary source of content for OTA television within a few decades. They might survive as business enterprises in a drastically changed mode of operation. But the days of the entire nation having shows like "The Big Bang Theory" available to watch simultaneously on Thursday nights will come to an end.

Future generations will not know about tuning in at a particular time to watch a show that was a regular viewing habit.

The only people who say things like this aren't sports fans.

People have been talking about the death of over-the-air TV since cable went to 35 channels back in the 80s. Even today, with hundreds of choices, the overwhelming majority of viewing is still on the local, over-the-air stations.

Besides the fact that cable channels in the aggregate are more popular than broadcast stations in the aggregate, as David pointed out, and besides the fact that broadcast is only the most popular programming if you don't count local sports, cable is just another kind of linear channel, so broadcast was able to retain its incumbent advantages as a result of inertia until cable's twin advantages of subscription fees and deregulated content caught up to them. The Internet represents a wholesale revolution in how we consume our content that stands against linear television as a whole.

 

[Avid Listener]

People have been talking about the death of over-the-air TV since cable went to 35 channels back in the 80s. Even today, with hundreds of choices, the overwhelming majority of viewing is still on the local, over-the-air stations.

You keep missing the point, don't you? The majority of viewing is off the local, over-the-air stations piped into people's homes via cable. The majority of viewing is of the content transmitted by the major networks. OTA television is little more than one conduit for network programming, or old reruns. No one watches their local CBS affiliate at 8:00 PM on Thursday night (7:00 PM Central) because they like their local station, or prefer their local station. They want to see The Big Bang Theory. At the rate things are going, at the pace that network programs are getting worse and worse and transitioning from scripted comedies and dramas to reality shows like The Amazing Race, eventually the "must see" TV shows will originate on cable-based networks, not networks based on OTA transmission. And most folks in the audience won't even notice because all of their TV is piped in through the cable.

 

[Avid Listener]

The only people who say things like this aren't sports fans.

Sporting events aren't "shows" in the sense that all other television programming is. Sporting events are "events".

 

[FredLeonard]

Tivo and other DVRs make adjustments if - and only if - the schedule/program guide is updated. Tivo updates the program guide data once every 28 hours (or so). The update time rotates throughout the week (I presume to keep everybody's box from requesting data from their servers at the same time). Tivo and other DVRs get their program info from Tribune Media but the Tivo guide is often a day or two behind Tribune Media's website (Zap2It) with changes. In short, Tivo and the rest won't get last minute or unscheduled changes (like delaying programs for a news report or if a ballgame runs long). Even a change a day or two before is not likely to get picked up.

I would think the networks would want to encourage on-demand viewing. (1) Nielsen now counts it. (2) They can keep you from fast forwarding commercials. (3) They can even customize the commercials you are shown - for example, inserting local spots into the stream or spots targeting "early adopters" who are more likely to be on-demand viewers. But broadcast networks have a long history of acting stupidly and stubbornly against their own self-interest (not to mention that of advertisers and viewers).

It's worth adding to this discussion the fact that Netflix has popularized the concept of so-called "binge viewing." We have always been able to get caught up in a novel and not able to "put it down" and "binge read." Some content is best appreciated that way. Now we have that freedom with TV series; we don't have to wait for broadcasters to dole out installments one at a time. Likewise, producers can take the time they need for a story. It's it's 45 minutes, they don't need to pad to fill an hour; if it's 75 minutes, they don't need to trim. All the only conventions of broadcasting, mostly based on selling time and keeping schedules, no longer need apply.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Sporting events aren't "shows" in the sense that all other television programming is. Sporting events are "events".

The point is, linear television can still be an integral part of the content universe of the future if it doesn't screw it up. And even "shows" could still benefit from being on linear television if they're the right kind.

In the same vein, FredLeonard shouldn't confuse his problems with watching scripted shows on linear television with a problem with linear television itself. Scripted shows can theoretically be watched anytime, anywhere; that's why you were DVRing it in the first place. But the people interested in the Ferguson decision wanted to watch it as it was happening. It is precisely the sort of thing linear television is good at. That the networks try to frustrate your ability to watch anytime is certainly a problem, and I fully support the coming of the day when scripted shows aren't dependent on the linear television ecosystem, but don't use the way scripted shows get treated by linear television as a way to slam linear television as a whole.

 

[FredLeonard]

The point is, linear television can still be an integral part of the content universe of the future if it doesn't screw it up. And even "shows" could still benefit from being on linear television if they're the right kind.

In the same vein, FredLeonard shouldn't confuse his problems with watching scripted shows on linear television with a problem with linear television itself. Scripted shows can theoretically be watched anytime, anywhere; that's why you were DVRing it in the first place. But the people interested in the Ferguson decision wanted to watch it as it was happening. It is precisely the sort of thing linear television is good at. That the networks try to frustrate your ability to watch anytime is certainly a problem, and I fully support the coming of the day when scripted shows aren't dependent on the linear television ecosystem, but don't use the way scripted shows get treated by linear television as a way to slam linear television as a whole.

The basis of the "ecosystem" is scripted shows.

Slamming? You just pointed out the basic limitation of "linear" or broadcast television. Each channel is one size fits all. Limited bandwidth. No choice. And part of the problem is the old-line, terrestrial "linear" networks still trying after 88 years to be all things to all people - doing both scripted/scheduled shows and event programming, despite the inherent conflict. The old-line, terrestrial networks need to adopt formatting, like radio did. Thanks to cable, satellite and even HD sub-channels, there is now enough bandwidth.

There are plenty of options: Last night when the decision came in from the grand-jury, they network could have used a crawl to tell "live" viewers what was happening and that live coverage would be offered on a terrestrial sub-channel and let scheduled programming would continue uninterrupted on the main channel. (NBC and Fox could also refer viewers to their affiliated news channels, as could CBS if they acquire CNN). Same thing on Sundays when football almost always runs long - viewers could be told regular programming at regular times will run on an HD sub-channel (and Tivo users can program their units to record on those channels) - with the main channel picking up the prime time schedule on a delayed basis after the game (as they do now). But that would require a more viewer-centric attitude on the part of broadcasters than they have been willing to show in the past.

 

[newsmark]

You keep missing the point, don't you?

I get the point. But the facts don't support that point. The fact is the station DOES still matter, even if it seems to defy logic.

Network programs ALWAYS perform better when they have a strong local affiliate with local news. (And yes, it works both ways. The local station gets better ratings all day long when it has a strong network.)

Are cable, satellite, over-the-top and on-demand growing? Yeah. Has broadcast TV lost some audience share? Yeah, quite a bit. When people get more choices, OF COURSE they're going to choose new options sometimes.

But a lot of it's about familiarity. People are the most familiar with the big 4 networks and their local affiliates, so for MOST people, that's still where they look first. Maybe that's why, a few weeks ago, when ESPN's Cowboys-Redskins game was simulcast in Dallas on WFAA 8, the local station's rating was 75% higher than ESPN's. Than more than accounts for the homes that don't have cable.

There's a reason 3 of the Big 4 networks keep buying up all the stations the government will allow: it's still a great business with plenty of room for growth and no sign of weakening overall.

I have no doubt things will continue to change. But the local stations will be around--and strong--for a long time to come.

 

[davideduardo]

You keep missing the point, don't you? The majority of viewing is off the local, over-the-air stations piped into people's homes via cable. The majority of viewing is of the content transmitted by the major networks. OTA television is little more than one conduit for network programming, or old reruns.

Nielsen rates the "Big 6 Networks" no matter what technical system is used to view them in the home. That can be OTA, Cable, Satellite and even the major network's streaming apps. That's why we have same day, multiple day and 7 day adjustments in the Nielsen numbers.

So, if on average less than 30% of prime time viewing comes from the "Big 6" that is not a majority. The majority of rated TV viewing is attributed to the cable networks.

 

[FredLeonard]

There's a reason 3 of the Big 4 networks keep buying up all the stations the government will allow: it's still a great business with plenty of room for growth and no sign of weakening overall.

I have no doubt things will continue to change. But the local stations will be around--and strong--for a long time to come.

This seems completely to contradict your second paragraph.

 

[Avid Listener]

Network programs ALWAYS perform better when they have a strong local affiliate with local news. (And yes, it works both ways. The local station gets better ratings all day long when it has a strong network.)

Are cable, satellite, over-the-top and on-demand growing? Yeah. Has broadcast TV lost some audience share? Yeah, quite a bit. When people get more choices, OF COURSE they're going to choose new options sometimes.

But a lot of it's about familiarity. People are the most familiar with the big 4 networks and their local affiliates, so for MOST people, that's still where they look first. Maybe that's why, a few weeks ago, when ESPN's Cowboys-Redskins game was simulcast in Dallas on WFAA 8, the local station's rating was 75% higher than ESPN's. Than more than accounts for the homes that don't have cable.

There's a reason 3 of the Big 4 networks keep buying up all the stations the government will allow: it's still a great business with plenty of room for growth and no sign of weakening overall.

I have no doubt things will continue to change. But the local stations will be around--and strong--for a long time to come.

What you can't seem to put together is the impact of second fact I highlighted on the first fact I highlighted. Yes, networks get better ratings when people put their TV on a particular channel and leave it there. It doesn't matter if it's OTA or coming in through a wire. As long as there are lazy people who just leave the boob tube on as background noise, getting them to tune in and leave it there helps the ratings. But that trend is, as you pointed out, diminishing.

Local stations might well stay around, but "strong"? Not if the content put out by the networks keeps getting worse all the time, and older viewers die off and are replaced by a new generation of viewers who don't still treat their television like in the olden days when you had to walk over to the set to change the channel.

 

[newsmark]

This seems completely to contradict your second paragraph.

How does it contradict, Fred? in the second paragraph, I say networks and local stations benefit each other. In the other paragraphs you mention, I say networks keep buying more local stations.... and they'll be strong for a long time. So clearly these huge network businesses see the benefit of buying local TV stations. If I was unclear... sorry!

 

[newsmark]

What you can't seem to put together is the impact of second fact I highlighted on the first fact I highlighted. Yes, networks get better ratings when people put their TV on a particular channel and leave it there. It doesn't matter if it's OTA or coming in through a wire. As long as there are lazy people who just leave the boob tube on as background noise, getting them to tune in and leave it there helps the ratings. But that trend is, as you pointed out, diminishing.

Local stations might well stay around, but "strong"? Not if the content put out by the networks keeps getting worse all the time, and older viewers die off and are replaced by a new generation of viewers who don't still treat their television like in the olden days when you had to walk over to the set to change the channel.

Yes, broadcast network TV viewing has diminished. It used to be almost 100% of viewing. Of course, when you add more competition, the new channels are going to take some of that audience. All I'm saying is the broadcast networks and stations still outperform every other platform by a large margin and I suspect they will for a long time to come. I just don't buy the idea that the broadcast networks are endangered any more than I did 30 years ago. There'll always be an audience who watches local news, is exposed to more of the promos for network shows and chooses to watch those shows.

I understand your point, but I hope we can agree to disagree.

 

[Avid Listener]

All I'm saying is the broadcast networks and stations still outperform every other platform by a large margin

That is not entirely accurate, to make it accurate you'd have to say, "the broadcast networks and stations still outperform every other platform by a large, yet steadily diminishing, margin." add that disclaimer, and your statement becomes meaningful.

"Agreeing to disagree" is intellectual bullshit.

 

[davideduardo]

All I'm saying is the broadcast networks and stations still outperform every other platform by a large margin

No, they don't.

The sum of the Big Six (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOx, Univision and CW) in prime time is generally about a 30 share. That's 30% of of all TV viewing excluding streamed content providers like Amazon Prime and Netfilx. It includes viewing via local affiliates whether they are received off the air, via cable or satellite. The number does not change even when delayed viewing via DVRs is included.

70% of viewing is not the networks that have national coverage via terrestrial TV broadcast stations.

For example, in prime in 18-49 on this last Monday, NBC had a 7 share, ABC and CBS had a 6 share each, while Fox had a 5 with Univision bringing in a 3 and CW a 1 share. Since there are always 100 shares, that means than either independent local channels or cable got the remaining 30-some shares.