So multichannel broadcaster UKTV is in the midle of a spat with platform provider Virgin Media over... something, something that ultimately doesn't really matter. I believe it might have to do in part with the fact that UKTV VOD (Video On Demand) is on Netflix and Amazon Prime, but not Virgin Media. I also hear that it might be in part due to the amount that UKTV charge Virgin Media for their channels, including ones that are available free to air on Freeview and Freesat.
As a result of this, all the UKTV channels, including the free ones, have been pulled from Virgin Media in both the UK & Ireland. If you go to where the channels are meant to be on the EPG (Electronic Programme Guide), you'll find different channels in their place, many of which do not offer similar programming to the channels they replaced.
One side effect of this is that in the UK, Premier Sports has been added to the XL pack, alongside the existing BT Sport and EuroSport channels, and the recently added FreeSports, which means for Virgin Media customers there is more live sport available without having to add the premium Sky Sports. If you include all the HD variants, there's 19 channels of sport available from around the world, including At The Races, Sky Sports Mix and Sky Sports News.
Neither side in this debacle looks good. Virgin Media have basically replaced a lot of channels that provided high quality programming, with a few channels that provide high quality programming and others that are not so high quality. And UKTV looks greedy for asking for probably more money than they should, for a product that whilst it is high quality, is far from a premium product. UKTV is mostly shows that have already been shown elsewhere, with a small sprinkling of original content.
Both sides are trying to hurt each other, but in doing so, the reality is they are only really hurting their loyal viewers, who are now unable to watch the channels on cable, and will now have to either subscribe to Sky for the UKTV channels, or will have to make do with the free channels on either Freeview, or ,if they're particularly sneaky like yours truly, on Freesat.
Not that I am particularly interested in watching anything that UKTV does currently. About the only thing I was remotely interested in was repeats of new Doctor Who from the 2005 series onwards. Oh, and the occassional live sport that was on Dave, and I can still get that on Freeview and Freesat, when they get the rights to show such events, but ITV4 gets more live sport than Dave does.
Overall, I am much happier that I now get Premier Sports as part of my subscription, which now means I have more accesss to live sport than ever before, which I think is an amazing bonus. This will probably end when UKTV finally agree a deal, but for now, I'm taking advantage of the situation, and enjoying the extra sports.
Showing posts with label Netflix. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Netflix. Show all posts
Tuesday, 24 July 2018
Wednesday, 20 April 2016
Torygraph thinks BBC should forget about the internet. Quell Surprise!
As Adam Savage used to say on Mythbusters when something easily predictable happened, "What... a... shocker."
This may have been the easiest column to predict. Neil Midgley wrote that the BBC should forget about the internet, and focus on finding the next Archers, or the next Countryfile. Those two programmes have really gotten a lot of attention lately. The Archers garnered the attention recently for a powerful spousal abuse storyline, and rightly so, spousal abuse is an issue that rarely gets talked about in the media in any kind of meaningful way. Countryfile has recently had some its best viewing figures in its 28 year history. Not too shabby by any stretch, but not that important either.
However, in trying to criticise the BBC for closing the linear version of BBC Three, Midgley made one crucial mistake in his attempt at analysis.
"When Lord Hall predicts that everything will one day go on-demand – and when, in fulfilling that credo, he starts to scythe bloodily and irretrievably through the creative flesh of the BBC – he is taking one trend and mistaking it for another. Yes, more people are subscribing to on-demand services such as Netflix. Yes, they are binge-watching shows such as Game of Thrones as “box sets”. Yes, teenagers now have iPads and smartphones on which they can watch TV shows. But where Hall makes his mistake is in believing that this new ability to watch on-demand, and on different devices, is a mortal threat to traditional channels."
Sadly, Neil Midgley underestimates the impact of on-demand programming. He's not the first, and he sure won't be the last. Even those in the broadcasting industry, like Ginny Hubbard of iHeartMedia, who only discovered podcasts when Serial launched in 2014 are late to the on-demand party. Podcasts have been around since 2003.
We're already seeing that on-demand watching and listening is having a massive effect in terms of garnering attention from the public. Programmes that have traditionally been watched as part of a linear stream, now no longer need to be. The future of shows like Doctor Who, Eastenders, and The Archers, is on-demand. Because these programmes are produced weeks, even months in advance, watching them at a pre-determined time is no longer a requirement. iPlayer allows people to watch it when they want to, not at a time of somebody else's choosing.
But if Neil Midgley thinks that Lord Hall thinks that on-demand is going to end linear TV, he's wrong. There just won't be as much linear TV to go around.
In the old days, significant chunks of programming, would be aired live, as there was no other way to do it cost-effectively. Nowadays, outside of news and sports, it's only magazine programmes and topical debate shows that are aired live. The likes of This Morning, Loose Women & The Wright Stuff are the kind of shows that go live to air. But as the likes of Doctor Who and Eastenders become more widely watched on demand, and will eventually leave linear TV, maybe in 10 years, maybe in 20 years, maybe in 50 years, other programming will have to replace it, and most of this will be live. Live sports is one of the few things on the air right now that is attracting significant viewership on a regular, consistent basis. Why is this? Because live programming can't be spoiled by over-excitable PR people accidentally giving away key moments and points whilst trying to tempt you in to watch it. How effective would the reveal of Darth Vader being Luke Skywalker's father have been in 1980, if the PR guys had included that moment in any of the trailers? It would have had all the impact of a damp squib.
The future is already starting to happen, and the result of that means that there won't be nearly as many linear channels in the future as there is now. Whether channels like Sky 1, Sky Living, Sky Atlantic or Sky Arts will still be around 20 years + down the line, is hard to predict, but given the trends we are already seeing, I am guessing that at least two of those brands will not survive into the era when On-Demand will be the primary way to watch television programmes. How many of the myriad of channels out there will survive into the new era? Maybe no more than 60-100, maybe not even that many.
But the ultra-conservative Torygraph, is frankly nuts if it thinks that the BBC should completely forget about the growth market that is On-Demand, in favour of old style linear TV. No business worth it's place in the world would deliberately ignore a growing market, in favour of a market that really peaked back in the early 2000s. Without turning linear channels into channels that favour and produce almost exclusively, live programming, On-Demand would kill of linear TV. Maybe not for a long time, maybe 20 years, maybe 50 years, maybe even more than that, but eventually it would, if it could.
We have lots of history on our side regarding this. People were afraid that motion pictures were going to spell the end of live theatre. It didn't. People were afraid that television was going to spell doom for the motion picture industry. Serials and newsreels disappeared, but over 60 years on, the motion picture industry is as strong and vibrant as it ever was. Why did these things not fall by the wayside? They adapted to the situation and found a way to thrive, and linear TV will do the same, by becoming a predominantly live medium.
This may have been the easiest column to predict. Neil Midgley wrote that the BBC should forget about the internet, and focus on finding the next Archers, or the next Countryfile. Those two programmes have really gotten a lot of attention lately. The Archers garnered the attention recently for a powerful spousal abuse storyline, and rightly so, spousal abuse is an issue that rarely gets talked about in the media in any kind of meaningful way. Countryfile has recently had some its best viewing figures in its 28 year history. Not too shabby by any stretch, but not that important either.
However, in trying to criticise the BBC for closing the linear version of BBC Three, Midgley made one crucial mistake in his attempt at analysis.
"When Lord Hall predicts that everything will one day go on-demand – and when, in fulfilling that credo, he starts to scythe bloodily and irretrievably through the creative flesh of the BBC – he is taking one trend and mistaking it for another. Yes, more people are subscribing to on-demand services such as Netflix. Yes, they are binge-watching shows such as Game of Thrones as “box sets”. Yes, teenagers now have iPads and smartphones on which they can watch TV shows. But where Hall makes his mistake is in believing that this new ability to watch on-demand, and on different devices, is a mortal threat to traditional channels."
Sadly, Neil Midgley underestimates the impact of on-demand programming. He's not the first, and he sure won't be the last. Even those in the broadcasting industry, like Ginny Hubbard of iHeartMedia, who only discovered podcasts when Serial launched in 2014 are late to the on-demand party. Podcasts have been around since 2003.
We're already seeing that on-demand watching and listening is having a massive effect in terms of garnering attention from the public. Programmes that have traditionally been watched as part of a linear stream, now no longer need to be. The future of shows like Doctor Who, Eastenders, and The Archers, is on-demand. Because these programmes are produced weeks, even months in advance, watching them at a pre-determined time is no longer a requirement. iPlayer allows people to watch it when they want to, not at a time of somebody else's choosing.
But if Neil Midgley thinks that Lord Hall thinks that on-demand is going to end linear TV, he's wrong. There just won't be as much linear TV to go around.
In the old days, significant chunks of programming, would be aired live, as there was no other way to do it cost-effectively. Nowadays, outside of news and sports, it's only magazine programmes and topical debate shows that are aired live. The likes of This Morning, Loose Women & The Wright Stuff are the kind of shows that go live to air. But as the likes of Doctor Who and Eastenders become more widely watched on demand, and will eventually leave linear TV, maybe in 10 years, maybe in 20 years, maybe in 50 years, other programming will have to replace it, and most of this will be live. Live sports is one of the few things on the air right now that is attracting significant viewership on a regular, consistent basis. Why is this? Because live programming can't be spoiled by over-excitable PR people accidentally giving away key moments and points whilst trying to tempt you in to watch it. How effective would the reveal of Darth Vader being Luke Skywalker's father have been in 1980, if the PR guys had included that moment in any of the trailers? It would have had all the impact of a damp squib.
The future is already starting to happen, and the result of that means that there won't be nearly as many linear channels in the future as there is now. Whether channels like Sky 1, Sky Living, Sky Atlantic or Sky Arts will still be around 20 years + down the line, is hard to predict, but given the trends we are already seeing, I am guessing that at least two of those brands will not survive into the era when On-Demand will be the primary way to watch television programmes. How many of the myriad of channels out there will survive into the new era? Maybe no more than 60-100, maybe not even that many.
But the ultra-conservative Torygraph, is frankly nuts if it thinks that the BBC should completely forget about the growth market that is On-Demand, in favour of old style linear TV. No business worth it's place in the world would deliberately ignore a growing market, in favour of a market that really peaked back in the early 2000s. Without turning linear channels into channels that favour and produce almost exclusively, live programming, On-Demand would kill of linear TV. Maybe not for a long time, maybe 20 years, maybe 50 years, maybe even more than that, but eventually it would, if it could.
We have lots of history on our side regarding this. People were afraid that motion pictures were going to spell the end of live theatre. It didn't. People were afraid that television was going to spell doom for the motion picture industry. Serials and newsreels disappeared, but over 60 years on, the motion picture industry is as strong and vibrant as it ever was. Why did these things not fall by the wayside? They adapted to the situation and found a way to thrive, and linear TV will do the same, by becoming a predominantly live medium.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)