Netflix Chief Predicts Death Of Broadcast TV By 2030

[davideduardo]

Only if you have a narrow, short-term view limited to nothing but ratings and advertising sales. If you're actually interesting in the content of television programs, then it makes a great deal of sense.

But the economic base for the creation of programming is, at this moment, almost entirely ratings and advertising based.

Even most of the short-form content on Netflix was developed to satisfy the needs of advertiser supported media. What we get via streaming for the most part is "used" material which is sold after the network runs in order to help pay for the production of that sort of programming.

Even the movies, save a few exceptions, go on the streaming after theatrical runs and DVD sales are done... and often not until the first run on cable is broadcast.

The nature of the content is driven by market forces. In the TV world, those are advertising and ratings.

A good example of market forces at work can be had by counting the number of prime time Western theme scripted shows. Then count the same genre in 1960. No "suit" as you call them made a decision that he did not want any more westerns; the viewership declined for all westerns, whether Gunsmoke or Rawhide or Bonanza and production stopped on all the horse operas.

 

[Morgan Wick]

I actually see Netflix liquidating. With digital distribution, content creators don't need a Netflix. They can self distribute or join with other content companies in controlling their distribution. The forays the company has made into content are far too minor to make them a real player. They will follow Blockbuster into the abyss.

This is the dumbest thing I've read in this whole discussion. Was any of this that much less the case when Netflix started streaming, which I believe was in 2007? Netflix IS digital distribution; how can its own medium make itself obsolete? Even if we take your assumptions at face value, there are three ways content creators could distribute their content: for free, in which case YouTube is threatened more than Netflix; as part of a subscription service, in which case it makes sense to minimize the number of subscription services so each one provides maximum value, so Netflix still has a purpose; or pay-per-view, and it seems really implausible to me that the third category will completely wipe out the second.

Good chance that in 16 years nobody will be doing or watching broadcast television (however delivered). If NBC and CBS want to see their hundredth anniversaries, they will have moved completely to on-demand content by that time.

As I told Avid Listener, only people who aren't sports fans can possibly say something like this. Specifically, if you knew anything about why the big media companies are falling over themselves trying to gobble up sports rights you'd at the very least think twice before saying something like this. Sports channels have been and will probably remain immune to the appeal of on-demand because regardless of whether a sporting event is on a linear channel or on an "on-demand" service, people feel they have to watch it at a particular time. Media companies know they have a captive audience that, no matter how on-demand the rest of the media landscape gets, will check in at the appointed time and watch their chosen program live as the platform delivering it delivers it to them. That's why those companies have become absolutely obsessed with sports. And sports aren't the only thing that's like this; that's the point I was trying to make about Ferguson.

I can't believe I have to defend broadcast television's existence HERE of all places. It's one thing to see broadcasters disdain their own nominal method of distribution and aspire to be cable channels; it's another to hear a "cord-cutting" podcast openly root for broadcast TV's demise. But it's something else entirely for a board about television, one with deeper roots in broadcast than the cable side that has lamented the state of broadcasting and hoped for future cord-cutting, to be resigned to the notion of broadcasting as an obsolete technology. It's really dispiriting that in the very place I would most expect to find allies I find I'm still a lone voice against the wilderness, with maybe some of the voices on RabbitEars on my side but even then only dimly perceiving the nature of the challenge ahead and what their role can be (and even some of those voices are a little old).

You're missing a really big point. Broadcast versus on-demand take a back seat to whether or not the content is compelling enough that the viewer wants to see it. There are TV shows that I'll adjust my personal schedule to watch when they first air. There are other TV shows that I'll delay watching until it's more convenient, and if I miss it, no big deal. And there are many on-demand shows I'll watch only if I'm bored and there's nothing else good to watch.

The way you've framed those options is still stuck in a linear television mindset. With a House of Cards, for example, "when it first airs" is still at least partly determined by when you sit down and start watching, and watching it when it's "more convenient" is the entire point. When everything is on-demand first and foremost, the only constraints on what you watch and when you watch it is your own convenience. There is no need to adjust your schedule to watch even the most compelling shows; everything is available at your convenience so there's never "nothing else good to watch". Of course, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a reason to adjust your schedule if anything asked you to, and as such I think this makes the point you were trying to make better than you actually did.

 

[Avid Listener]

As I told Avid Listener, only people who aren't sports fans can possibly say something like this. Specifically, if you knew anything about why the big media companies are falling over themselves trying to gobble up sports rights you'd at the very least think twice before saying something like this. Sports channels have been and will probably remain immune to the appeal of on-demand because regardless of whether a sporting event is on a linear channel or on an "on-demand" service, people feel they have to watch it at a particular time. Media companies know they have a captive audience that, no matter how on-demand the rest of the media landscape gets, will check in at the appointed time and watch their chosen program live as the platform delivering it delivers it to them. That's why those companies have become absolutely obsessed with sports. And sports aren't the only thing that's like this; that's the point I was trying to make about Ferguson.

The thing is, one major sports league, the NFL, already has started their own network, and its content is only available via cable or something like it. In time, it could come to pass that all of the sports leagues would own and transmit their own live content over media of their choice. Just because some have attempted to make this an issue of real-time versus on demand, that's not the entire issue. I believe that the economies of broadcasting content at scheduled times for viewers to either watch or record for viewing at their convenience will outweigh the demand for nothing but on demand programming. After all, despite the ease of listening to one's own recorded music, people still tolerate the problems of OTA music format radio. That's another thing that is "dying" in that it is constantly diminishing in listenership, but will probably survive on death's door for decades.

 

[vchimpanzee]

like in the olden days when you had to walk over to the set to change the channel.

Changing channels is much harder for me these days.

If I'm watching DTV, I have to either press the up or down button and hope I get the right channel, or enter the channel number. It takes time for that channel to change.

I rarely do that because DT signals have been less than dependable. But with TiVo, I have to go to the main menu, select the guide to what is on, go through all these nonsensical requests such as "favorite channels" and "movies", finally reach the list, select the time, select the show, and only THEN can I "watch now". There may be a simpler way.

Usually I have made my choices in advance and I rarely watch "live" any more.

 

[Avid Listener]

There's another issue that hasn't been addressed. If the point is reached where almost all television viewing is over some kind of wires or cable, the government might decide that the radio spectrum allocated for broadcast television might be put to better use for some other purpose. If that happens, it's bye-bye OTA television.

And before anyone says that's impossible, remember, we're talking about the Federal government. The same people who said, "If you like your current health care insurance, you can keep it." The people who turned the statement, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you" into one of the top three lies of all time. Never depend on the Federal government to do what is right or smart.

 

[Morgan Wick]

There's another issue that hasn't been addressed. If the point is reached where almost all television viewing is over some kind of wires or cable, the government might decide that the radio spectrum allocated for broadcast television might be put to better use for some other purpose. If that happens, it's bye-bye OTA television.

How are you defining "television"? If you're defining it as video of any kind, it'll never reach that point so long as people want to watch video on their smartphones or tablets. If you're defining it as linear television, it'll only reach that point if people have truly screwed up in not adapting linear TV to smartphones or tablets (a fate even the wireless companies are trying to avoid), and if you're defining it as a traditional fixed television set, if those even exist in a decade or two I predict the line between them and a really big computer will be decidedly blurred. Not that that's stopping the government from seemingly trying to kill OTA TV anyway...

 

[FredLeonard]

How are you defining "television"? If you're defining it as video of any kind, it'll never reach that point so long as people want to watch video on their smartphones or tablets. If you're defining it as linear television, it'll only reach that point if people have truly screwed up in not adapting linear TV to smartphones or tablets (a fate even the wireless companies are trying to avoid), and if you're defining it as a traditional fixed television set, if those even exist in a decade or two I predict the line between them and a really big computer will be decidedly blurred. Not that that's stopping the government from seemingly trying to kill OTA TV anyway...

This sounds not unlike the same discussion the motion picture industry was having 65 years ago. The studios were locked into the idea that a movie was something shown in theaters and only something shown in the theaters. And their business was making movies for theaters. Then the anti-trust people in the justice department forced the studios out of the theater business (and theater chains out of the movie studio business). It took a few years but eventually the studios realized a movie was movie whether it was shown on a big screen in a theater or a small screen at home. And one of the newly independent theater chain owners went and bought a TV network (and started making deals with movie studios). Now most of the major terrestrial and cable networks are either owned by or co-owned with movie studios.

 

[Avid Listener]

How are you defining "television"?

I define "television" as moving pictures and audio similar to cinema, but reproduced electronically rather than by projecting light through film. When I use the phrase "OTA Television", I am referring to Over The Air Television, the broadcasting of television signals from antennas to be received by antennas at the viewers' location. Whether or not the content is available to be consumed at the consumers' leisure or is available at specific times that the viewer must schedule himself to view, or a hybrid combination of scheduled transmission that the viewer can either watch or record are irrelevant, and have nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

[Morgan Wick]

I define "television" as moving pictures and audio similar to cinema, but reproduced electronically rather than by projecting light through film. When I use the phrase "OTA Television", I am referring to Over The Air Television, the broadcasting of television signals from antennas to be received by antennas at the viewers' location. Whether or not the content is available to be consumed at the consumers' leisure or is available at specific times that the viewer must schedule himself to view, or a hybrid combination of scheduled transmission that the viewer can either watch or record are irrelevant, and have nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Not to get technical here, but aren't a lot of "movies" these days "television" by your definition, even when they're shown in a theater? My point didn't have anything to do with the on-demand question either; it was that I'd be shocked if we ever reached the point where all "television" is "over some kind of wires or cable" given the popularity, right now, of smartphones and tablets that can connect to wireless data networks (or, for that matter, Wi-Fi, even if it is ultimately delivered through a cable), which defeats the assumption behind your original point. If you had said the government might try to kill broadcast television because almost all TV viewing was over wires or the Internet, your point might have made sense, though it would have been a different point. That's why I asked whether your definition of "television" was more narrow, because I couldn't make sense of your point otherwise, and I wasn't entirely sure of your point even then.

I honestly think that, speaking strictly from a technological standpoint, the Internet will (or at least should) kill cable TV (or at least effectively knock it back to the CATV days when its purpose was solely to deliver TV signals to areas that couldn't get them OTA) before the combination of the two threaten broadcast television, simply because antennas, be they owned by the wireless companies, broadcast stations, or even Wi-Fi hotspots, can reach both mobile and fixed devices (as well as the entire spectrum in between), whereas a cable or other wire has to be connected directly to whatever device you're watching on (even if it goes through a bunch of other devices) if it's not using the airwaves as an intermediary. I do think the market for linear television is badly oversaturated, but it makes more sense for the bandwidth devoted to it to contract in the area exclusive to cable before it contracts in the area delivered over the airwaves, regardless of what specific services are left or whether the services that go away stick around as non-linear services. But the government doesn't care about what makes the most sense, only what most benefits the people with the most money...

 

[FredLeonard]

Not to get technical here, but aren't a lot of "movies" these days "television" by your definition, even when they're shown in a theater? My point didn't have anything to do with the on-demand question either; it was that I'd be shocked if we ever reached the point where all "television" is "over some kind of wires or cable" given the popularity, right now, of smartphones and tablets that can connect to wireless data networks (or, for that matter, Wi-Fi, even if it is ultimately delivered through a cable), which defeats the assumption behind your original point. If you had said the government might try to kill broadcast television because almost all TV viewing was over wires or the Internet, your point might have made sense, though it would have been a different point. That's why I asked whether your definition of "television" was more narrow, because I couldn't make sense of your point otherwise, and I wasn't entirely sure of your point even then.

I honestly think that, speaking strictly from a technological standpoint, the Internet will (or at least should) kill cable TV (or at least effectively knock it back to the CATV days when its purpose was solely to deliver TV signals to areas that couldn't get them OTA) before the combination of the two threaten broadcast television, simply because antennas, be they owned by the wireless companies, broadcast stations, or even Wi-Fi hotspots, can reach both mobile and fixed devices (as well as the entire spectrum in between), whereas a cable or other wire has to be connected directly to whatever device you're watching on (even if it goes through a bunch of other devices) if it's not using the airwaves as an intermediary. I do think the market for linear television is badly oversaturated, but it makes more sense for the bandwidth devoted to it to contract in the area exclusive to cable before it contracts in the area delivered over the airwaves, regardless of what specific services are left or whether the services that go away stick around as non-linear services. But the government doesn't care about what makes the most sense, only what most benefits the people with the most money...

The motion picture industry is moving and has moved increasingly to digital technology. Many movies are shot digitally. Special effects are almost all digital. All movies are sent to the theaters as digital files (not reels of film) and shown on digital projectors (NOT light through film). In recent years, distributors have stopped shipping film and theaters have been forced to either buy digital projectors or go out of business.

The motion picture industry still sees the basic distinction between movies and TV shows as whether a production is shown in theaters. To be eligible for Oscar consideration, a movie must be shown for one week at a theater in both New York and LA. Made for TV movies can't get Oscars. I suppose HBO or somebody could buy or rent theaters in both cities and show their "original" movies and try for Oscars.

 

[Avid Listener]

Not to get technical here,

To get "technical", most folks get the internet over wires. Even if they use WiFi, there are wires involved getting it to the router where it is sent out over the air. I'm not going to write a whole damn paragraph to explain all the various methods by which television is transported from it origin point to where it is experienced, or to worry about whether a movie theater is television or cinema because the theatre has gone digital. If you want to nitpick on such trivia, leave me out.

For the purposes of this discussion, Over The Air (OTA) refers to old-fashioned television beamed out through transmission antennas to receiver antennas at the site of reception. "Wired" television refers to everything else, including the internet, which for a large percentage of Americans come into their homes through the same wire that brings them cable TV and maybe even telephone.

 

[Unregistered]

Superstitious, but 2030 will not only end broadcast TV but also HUMANITY ITSELF. YES, WE WILL END by a catastrophic natural disaster! Also, I didn't actually said that, but somewhere in the internet said it.

However, the end of Broadcast TV will mean the end of radio itself. Also, HOW WILL PEOPLE LISTEN TO THEIR FAVORITE HITS IN THE FUTURE? WHAT ABOUT THE POOR PEOPLE THAT CAN'T AFFORD NETFLIX AND THEY CAN ONLY AFFORD RADIO AND BROADCAST TV? WHAT ABOUT THE ONES THAT DON'T NEED NETFLIX. HOW WILL WE GET THE NEWS?! AND WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS THAT WANT A FUTURE IN BROADCASTING? (like me ) Some poor people can't afford Netflix, and the only way they are getting their favorite shows is on TV. And what about newspapers? THAT IS LIKE GOING BACKWARDS NOT FORWARDS IN ADVANCEMENT. And WE ALL KNOW we CAN'T go back in time (unless someone can build a time machine at that time, because it's the future). This hurts everyone and poor people, because people below the poverty line can't afford Netflix (only TV and Radio) (and the newspaper).

And Mexico, SOME PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD NETFLIX THERE. BECAUSE MEXICO HAS LOTS OF POOR PEOPLE THAN THE US. So this hurts us all! Please save broadcasting TV for all of us. Also, what about public television (like PBS) in 2030, becuase how will children get a start in life and how will we be informed about the world?!

I know this sounds a little off, but it's true! I only know the only network struggling in 2030 is NBC! FOX is doing badly, but not a lot worse as they have The Simpsons and Family Guy which are doing really well. Also, Univision and UniMas will survive, as their will be more Spanish people coming up and terrestrial stations will be expanding. Who knows when the big broadcasters (such as Scripps-Howard-Journal, Sinclair, Raycom, and Entravision) will make Univision and UniMas stations all across the country and have their own local newscasts (and keep Noticero Univision as their National news for the network). Univision also ranked 3rd or 4th in networks performance in the entire country (unbeliveable but true). That means the only definite survivors will be CBS and ABC as CBS is billed as America's Most Watched Network and ABC has the best shows like Grey's Anatomy, HTGAWM, Scandal, Black-ish, The Goldbergs, and Modern Family and the almost #1 news team teamed up with Univsion to make the Fusion network.

Their is also CABLE, WHAT ABOUT CABLE IN 2030?!

Sorry if this is long, but this talk about Netfix announcing the end of terrestrial TV IS INSULTING ME A LOT!

 

[FredLeonard]

What about the poor people? Too !@#$ing bad. But I'm sure the PC types will come up with Vidicaid or Vidstamps or Vidfare or some other program and the rest of us will subsidize those poor, poor people yet again. In practical terms, everybody's bill goes up two or three bucks a month so "Unregistered" can feel better.

Kids who want a future in broadcasting? No need to make them a separate category. There aren't many but they will end up below the poverty line, too.

I know you are already feeling insulted A LOT, so I won't say any more about what I think of your post.

 

[Unregistered]

What about the poor people? Too !@#$ing bad. But I'm sure the PC types will come up with Vidicaid or Vidstamps or Vidfare or some other program and the rest of us will subsidize those poor, poor people yet again. In practical terms, everybody's bill goes up two or three bucks a month so "Unregistered" can feel better.

Kids who want a future in broadcasting? No need to make them a separate category. There aren't many but they will end up below the poverty line, too.

I know you are already feeling insulted A LOT, so I won't say any more about what I think of your post.

Like what I said in The Hollywood Reporter article, "If you are hurting poor people, YOU ARE HURTING EVERYBODY!" Look, I am trying to be generous and kind to everyone that can't afford Netflix, don't have cable, or just like broadcast TV shows, BUT YOU JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT IT! The poverty rate is AT 14.5%, which is very bad, because LOTS OF MEXICANS DON'T HAVE CABLE. YOU JUST LIKE "I DON'T CARE". And I know that everybody's bill goes up at some rate every month.

What I FORGOT TO SAY IN THAT POST IS THAT TO NOT SAY ANYTHING OFFENSIVE TO THE POOR, BECAUSE OF WHAT I SAID IN THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER ARTICLE! ALSO, there is public televison, which is like, well EVERYWHERE. Hispanics don't watch Netflix, BECAUSE THEIR IS ALMOST LITTLE TO NONE SPANISH SHOWS IN NETFLIX. Well, at least they have Netflix's competitor, HULU. Public TV (aka in almost all areas PBS), is non-commercial, so it uses funds to support their programming. ABC and CBS are doing very well, so I don't see anything bad about that. FOX, well they have Family Guy and Simpsons, which is highly popular animations. If you want to see a struggling network, there is only one and that is NBC. They are doing VERY BADLY RIGHT NOW, apart from Brian Williams's NBC Nightly News and Jimmy Fallon, which is doing pretty AWESOME RIGHT NOW! This is not what I am I saying to you but what I am saying to you and EVERYBODY ELSE!

Some people have what some call "THE AMERICAN DREAM" that some don't believe in but others do.

 

[Unregistered]

Also, what about the news?! Don't say anything offensive.

 

[Unregistered]

And the NAB agrees too! They say "DON'T MESS WITH FREE TV!" with the KeepMyTV website. According to the NAB, about 60,000,000 people need broadcast tv (NBC, Univision, UniMas, ABC, CBS, FOX, PBS) and what about the EAS. How will we be safe if Netfilx won't warn us about weather?! We need the news, sports, and weather. And just so you know, that what Netflix DOSEN'T and what broadcast TV does. If broadcast TV were to end by 2030, then hundreds of people might die from weather conditions, because they are not informed, because they only have Netflix.

DON'T SAY ANYTHING OFFENSIVE TO THOSE PEOPLE!

 

[vchimpanzee]

There's another issue that hasn't been addressed. If the point is reached where almost all television viewing is over some kind of wires or cable, the government might decide that the radio spectrum allocated for broadcast television might be put to better use for some other purpose. If that happens, it's bye-bye OTA television.

And before anyone says that's impossible, remember, we're talking about the Federal government. The same people who said, "If you like your current health care insurance, you can keep it." The people who turned the statement, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you" into one of the top three lies of all time. Never depend on the Federal government to do what is right or smart.

I'm amazed you apparently haven't seen the discussion taking place on this site about that very possibiity. How is wireless broadband going to expand? Take away spectrum from the broadcasters.

 

[Unregistered]

I'm amazed you apparently haven't seen the discussion taking place on this site about that very possibiity. How is wireless broadband going to expand? Take away spectrum from the broadcasters.

Finally! Someone who agrees with me about the end of TV in 2030 and how will it effect the NAB and broadband internet. Thanks, vchimpanzee! ;D

 

[Avid Listener]

It seems that the LA Times says "Older viewers also abandoning TV in favor of phone, computer".

Neilson said said that the amount of time spent watching video on computers and smartphones each day among those age 55 and up increased 55% in the third quarter, compared with the same quarter last year. If even the old farts are starting to abandon OTA television, that can't be good news for the future of OTA TV.

 

[landtuna]

Neilson said said that the amount of time spent watching video on computers and smartphones each day among those age 55 and up increased 55% in the third quarter, compared with the same quarter last year. If even the old farts are starting to abandon OTA television, that can't be good news for the future of OTA TV.

Did it say WHAT us old farts are watching? Does it matter if I watch Scandal on my phone, iPAD, Netflix or TV set? I am still watching the same content which, I presume, is sponsored by the same adverts (or subscription). I didn't buy a $2,000 flat screen with surround sound so I could watch Squint-o-vision on my phone. I suspect most other old farts did not either. After all, we are the only age group that has the TIME and FLEXIBILITY to watch TV on a scheduled or unscheduled basis.