Streaming , Does it Still Have a Viable Future ?

[Dave]

I've never seen Network but I just read a synopsis. It was correct about News broadcasts becoming more populist, but it doesn't seem to predict the end of TV, only that it was getting dumbed down. I think one positive thing about the BBC (our public service broadcaster paid for by license fee rather than advertising) is that it can still make some more intellectually challenging non-fiction documentaries, and history, natural history and arts programmes. However, on drama, I would agree with what Brian said earlier:

the BBC has a reputation for not daring to take risks on new talent these days

Also, there seems to be a growing demand to change the way the BBC is funded (or under-funded) and it might simply become another of those fighting for a piece of the pie. If that happens it would just get bought by a larger player in the game. There are people who don't pay the UK license fee now. This used to be impossible if you didn't own a TV because, what else were you watching on TV if not BBC. Now, one could honestly say that they never watched BBC TV since there is ample other choices. So, I do think that the BBC is facing a huge problem, and without it, with networks simply making programmes that meet the lowest common denominator and not daring to ever take any risks at all, well I could see TV really going downhill fast. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

There are alternatives to scripted TV or film drama to watch today that never existed before too. The Gaming industry is huge, and not only to people play, but they watch others play. But I still maintain what I said in my first post in this thread, that the popularity of some recent TV programmes must give some confidence that their is still and audience for drama.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Being able to only see a program or a movie at a time selected by tv networks and movie studios is what died. The idea that people will continue to pay more and more to watch something they can watch for less somewhere else has also died. It would be interesting to see if live plays continue to experience bigger audiences. Some live sporting events have seen a decline in attendance. The big tv screens keep getting bigger and cheaper. Lots of people are still watching the movies or whatever they want to watch when they want to, but it is done at home on big screen tvs. Straight to video used to mean the movie was a dud, but that is no longer true. Every once in a while you see someone standing by their car outside of a store trying to figure out how to get their new big screen tv into their car because it's too big to fit in the car.

 

[paeng]

I've never seen Network but I just read a synopsis. It was correct about News broadcasts becoming more populist, but it doesn't seem to predict the end of TV, only that it was getting dumbed down. I think one positive thing about the BBC (our public service broadcaster paid for by license fee rather than advertising) is that it can still make some more intellectually challenging non-fiction documentaries, and history, natural history and arts programmes. However, on drama, I would agree with what Brian said earlier:

Also, there seems to be a growing demand to change the way the BBC is funded (or under-funded) and it might simply become another of those fighting for a piece of the pie. If that happens it would just get bought by a larger player in the game. There are people who don't pay the UK license fee now. This used to be impossible if you didn't own a TV because, what else were you watching on TV if not BBC. Now, one could honestly say that they never watched BBC TV since there is ample other choices. So, I do think that the BBC is facing a huge problem, and without it, with networks simply making programmes that meet the lowest common denominator and not daring to ever take any risks at all, well I could see TV really going downhill fast. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

There are alternatives to scripted TV or film drama to watch today that never existed before too. The Gaming industry is huge, and not only to people play, but they watch others play. But I still maintain what I said in my first post in this thread, that the popularity of some recent TV programmes must give some confidence that their is still and audience for drama.

One notable thing about news and populism is that according to some sources, at least in the states much of media is controlled by only a few corporations:

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

www.businessinsider.com

which includes not only news but also entertainment, both showbiz and sports, and movies and TV, and probably streaming, too, if they involve funding from asset managers that work with the same corporations.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Meet the new cable companies. Pick what you want was too good for controlling viewing expenses. Nice while it lasted. Streaming packages will have higher prices, but the original cable companies might lower their prices. Amazon is advertising that they can supply all you viewing choices from one location, which is not true. The current cost is $139 per year and probably going higher.
"Disney's ESPN, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Fox (FOXA) announced they would launch a sports streaming service this upcoming fall. Meanwhile, Paramount (PARA) and Peacock owner Comcast (CMCSA) have held discussions about a potential joint streaming venture, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal."

 

[KGeo777]

It was inevitable that streaming would get expensive because it simply was not viable that they could offer endless programming for less than $10? I think it was a $1 a month for some services.

Technology is such now that just about anyone--anywhere-can produce a program with higher than average production values if they really wanted to.
The real challenge is that professional artists have market access to offer variety in idea which is not what you get with the big 6 corporations.

 

[paeng]

I think the variety involves adjustments to the same sets of tropes. Add to that the point that one reason for problems faced by streaming platforms is market saturation.

 

[paranoid marvin]

It's the ridiculous cost of live sport and the (almost equally) ridiculous price paid for some new licences that help drive prices up.

All in the name of acquiring new cudtomers, but whose price increases are likely to annoy/alienate/lose their existing customer base.

Without the acquisition of the Premier League and Lord of the Rings, would Amazon Prime be going up in price/adding adverts/reducing benefits?

Leave live sport for terrestrial tv and specific sport-related subscription services. Don't pay massively over inflated prices for licences, when you could pay writers to create new stories at a fraction of the cost.

BritBox/ITVX is still a great deal for around 20p per day, and is packed full of great older tv programmes. Watch a full run of some classic tv programmes and movied, which are easily on a par with more modern offerings, and you would never want for anything more.

 

[Parson]

It's the ridiculous cost of live sport and the (almost equally) ridiculous price paid for some new licences that help drive prices up.

All in the name of acquiring new cudtomers, but whose price increases are likely to annoy/alienate/lose their existing customer base.

This is the truth, but only part of it. By far the two biggest drivers of viewership are Sports and Quality New programing. If you don't have those it is likely that you are going to be among the losers in the streaming wars. Those people who are satisfied with Old TV or niche programing are a vanishingly small percentage of people.