-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Which Cable Channel will close first?
- Thread starter TVCOOL
- Start date
Which cable channel or which Viacom channel? I'm not familiar with Logo, so I choose that from your list. MTV and Nickelodeon will survive to the bitter end.
I'd think movie channels, especially premium channels, HBO, Sho, IFC, TCM, etc. would be most likely to become non-linear, on demand, program providers first.
I'd think movie channels, especially premium channels, HBO, Sho, IFC, TCM, etc. would be most likely to become non-linear, on demand, program providers first.
Channels that appeal to older viewers, who are less likely to cut the cord, might survive longer than you think. TCM is a good example. So is the American Heroes Channel (formerly The Military Channel), which is where all those old documentaries about World War II and the Third Reich seem to have ended up now that The History Channel is more a reality TV channel than anything else.
Logo is an LGBT network with a worthy mission and good shows like RuPaul's Drag Race; unlike most of their networks, like Comedy Central it's one of the few Viacom hasn't screwed up. It'll stay and worse comes to worse, it'll easily move to the web.
TeenNick on the other hand; their only original 'show', a top 10 video countdown show with a pre-selected list of videos and reams and reams of repeat programming? It probably can't last until 2020. NickMom's Nick Jr. block was already killed a month ago and we all know this forum can't stand TV Land in its current form (I personally don't care; Younger is a good show and they have to do what they have to in order to stay alive), which means Viacom's 'cradle-to-grave' strategy of getting viewers is starting to get massive holes within it. Only by their genre alone, MTV's music video only channels are also likely to go next too. HLN is likely to become something else; the channel space and +90 million carriage would be stupid to just take a channel dark, but surviving on Forensic Files isn't going to work forever.
I see the premiums and TCM sticking on for years to come though; there's still a 'discovery' sense to some television schedules. TCM will never give the MGM library to another streaming provider until the bitter end and will still be a functioning service for years to come.
I hadn't heard of NickMom until this week. That is how obscure it was, at least to me.
Warners has their own streaming service "Warner Archive" (9.99 per month). I'm surprised it isn't promoted more.
I don't expect any (or many) established linear channels to shut down completely in the next 20 years.
I could see HBO going on demand with possibly 2 linear channels, maybe no linear channels if they drop all sports programs.
Discovery could theoretically put all their dub-networks on demand and keep 2 linear channels.
Classic channels like TCM will keep adding newer programming. I see many linear channels with that type of programming hanging on to the end, but channels with limited commercial interruptions may go away first.
Live programming/sports programs will keep tv channels alive.
I guess it all depends on how valuable their bandwidth is and how much bandwidth is available.
20 years before anything significant happens.
I could see HBO going on demand with possibly 2 linear channels, maybe no linear channels if they drop all sports programs.
Discovery could theoretically put all their dub-networks on demand and keep 2 linear channels.
Classic channels like TCM will keep adding newer programming. I see many linear channels with that type of programming hanging on to the end, but channels with limited commercial interruptions may go away first.
Live programming/sports programs will keep tv channels alive.
I guess it all depends on how valuable their bandwidth is and how much bandwidth is available.
20 years before anything significant happens.
Look at the TV/Internet landscape just 10 years ago and tell me, honestly, that you thought it would look the way it does today in only 10 years. I'll bet you'd have been saying "20 years" or "never." Things are moving faster than some people with interests in preserving TV's status quo, either as fans or executives, would like to see them happen. Lawyers and bought-off congressmen may be able to apply the brakes for a while, but the wheels are in motion and big changes are coming, most likely well before 20 years from now, IMO.
There is a lot of room for the super niche channels that don't have universal carriage to go away. A few examples:
DIY Network
GAC
FYI (formerly Biography)
Smithsonian
Also, the movie channels - who needs them when I can watch almost anything on-demand for less than a subscription to Starz?
DIY Network
GAC
FYI (formerly Biography)
Smithsonian
Also, the movie channels - who needs them when I can watch almost anything on-demand for less than a subscription to Starz?
I can see big changes starting in about 10 years, but lineal tv as we know it will survive at least 20 more years. More and more programming will go on-demand or over-the-top. Cable stations will continue to consolidate co owned properties (i.e. NBC shutting down Universal Sports and moving the better programming to NBC Sports net) and moving the rest of the programming online.
Now if somehow cable switched their business model to al a carte, all bets are off. I cant imagine to consequences of al a carte cable. I'd probably drop from 200 cable channels to 25, plus over the top options.
Aren't sports teams/leagues signing 10-20 year contracts to carry live events on ESPN/CBS/etc in order to force their business model to rely on broadcast TV and keep current revenues high?
Only the NFL relies on broadcast television for all games other than Mondays and half of Thursdays. Sunday Ticket enhances the broadcast coverage, not replaces it.
FBS college football still uses the major broadcast networks for at least one game every week or home games only (Notre Dame on NBC) to the tune of about six games per week on average. Baseball, basketball, and hockey at both the college and pro levels have either reduced or eliminated their OTA presence, both at the national level and especially at the local (team) level.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
As long as there is an ability to repurpose old content on co-owned channels (such as Mythbusters reruns on Science Channel, also owned by Discovery), nothing is going to "close". With the repurposing, the cost of operation is low and even if the ad sales are conditioned on spots being spread across multiple channel, they're still turning a profit.
The other factor is that once a multiple network operator has negotiated with the cable/satellite providers for "their" number of channels, they're loath to give them back. As long as they have them, they effectively block others from coming in with channels of their own. That's why NBC started CNBC back in 1989 by buying the Tempo channel lock, stock and transponder; it allowed them to get onto a lot of systems out of the box. It's also why Current bought out NewsWorld International in 2004; instant DirecTV carriage.
I wouldn't be surprised to see more of that third-party buyouts of some of these secondary networks, though.
The other factor is that once a multiple network operator has negotiated with the cable/satellite providers for "their" number of channels, they're loath to give them back. As long as they have them, they effectively block others from coming in with channels of their own. That's why NBC started CNBC back in 1989 by buying the Tempo channel lock, stock and transponder; it allowed them to get onto a lot of systems out of the box. It's also why Current bought out NewsWorld International in 2004; instant DirecTV carriage.
I wouldn't be surprised to see more of that third-party buyouts of some of these secondary networks, though.
In some ways, a la carte is happening due to streaming services. You can buy HBO without cable now. Same for CBS and a few others. You can also get a limited "cable" package with Sling TV. The CBS All Access deal for the new Star Trek series is probably the biggest example of this shift.
It is hard to know how all of this will shake out in the long run. Sports programming is generally immune to this shift because it's the one thing people simple must see live. News is somewhat immune to it, but you can get news online quite easy as well. My hunch is that linear programming will always be around in some form or another. It just may be restricted to news, sports and other live events.
ESPN is using those channels as leverage for the main network. They demand carriage of the lower tiered channels with the rights to ESPN/2. It's really not costing them anything to have those extra channels. It's all in the package.
HLN is strong with young women, the ESPN networks attract young me. Both demos are in Madison Avenue's sights. So long as advertising continues to support those channels, they'll survive. Oh, and I'm sure serious sports fans will say yes, they do need all those ESPNs. Should ESPN cut back on live events, then Disney might consider jettisoning ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews (which occasionally shows live events) and ESPN Classic (ditto, but its main purpose is to show events from the past along with sports documentaries and movies, something the other ESPNs don't do).
If they were to shut down one channel it would be ESPNEWS, with Sportscenter running all day on the anchor network I don't see a purpose for the news side that doesn't really show news anymore, Either rebrand it as ESPN 4 or kill it. But they do use it as overflow.
ESPN can't survive without multiple channels to air games. Without the games, they lose subscribers. Without subscribers, they go under. Same goes for the Fox, Root Sports, Comcast/NBC, and CBS sports channels. The pro leagues & college conferences know that. They can extort...er, I mean extract $Billions from the networks. The networks are forced to pay, the carriage fees go up, and the cable & satellite companies raise their rates.
At the same time, the leagues & conferences can't survive unless all of their games are televised. The rights fees pay the salaries of players and coaches, per the players' unions and coaches' individual contracts. The gate matters little anymore.
The bottom line is: A la carte will be the death of professional sports in the United States and Canada, at least for a period of time until salaries are slashed by 90% or more. College sports will survive, but at a far lower exposure level. But ESPN and the others as a la carte services won't happen. Ever.
The sports bubble will burst at some point. People will just stop paying for cable and ESPN will have to cut corners so much that will force them to lower their payments to the leagues or they will go bankrupt. I don't see how this lopsided model can go on much longer. The ones getting the squeeze are the subscribers. ESPN lost a few million viewers and is already feeling the pinch. What happens when a lot of people cut the cord?
- Status