Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday October 18 2016, @07:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the dunno,-change-channel dept.

The Guardian asks: Is the golden age of television over?

Money is the root of TV's problems. In the US, where the TV economy is headquartered, TV and internet access costs two to three times what it does in the UK, and networks are in a tug-of-war with Americans, who are increasingly shredding steep cable bills in favor of Netflix and streaming services. This summer, many networks became locked in all-out legal battles with cash-strapped cable companies, with multibillion-dollar distribution deals at stake to fund those networks' huge programming budgets.

Executives are planning for a less luxurious future, in which TV shows may be briefer, lower-budget and filled with the kind of product-placement ads that audiences hate and advertisers pay for. Worse still, the company that started much of the trouble may soon confront flaws in its own business model.

Netflix reports earnings on Monday. Its problems, and those of companies like it, are more pressing than those of traditional television. At a conference in New York this month, chief executive Reed Hastings was blunt.

"Disney, who is very good in China, had their movie service shut down," he told an audience at the New Yorker Tech Fest. "Apple, who is very good in China, had their movie service closed down. It doesn't look good."

Hastings said his company was seeking to expand in other countries, India in particular. But there's a reason media businesses seeking vast scale tend to view China as the solution to all their problems: internet penetration in India is rising from 26% according to the World Bank. In China, it's rising from 50%.

[Continues...]

Netflix needs the money that increased scale would provide, in part, to pay top dollar for shows such as Arrested Development and Lost. In January, it told investors it owed $10.9bn in TV show licenses alone, with $4.7bn of that due this year. After that, almost the entire balance is due before the end of 2018.

Netflix will have to keep buying reruns at what will almost certainly be increasing rates if it wants to retain its users, and the companies selling those shows are now in a tight spot too – largely thanks to the ad-free Netflix model.

At US television networks, budget struggles mean making shows more as UK networks do, except with lots of ads and product placement: shorter lifespans, fewer sets and special effects, fewer episodes per series – and then little margin for error if shows look like they're failing early on.

Netflix cannot scale back. Its viewers pay for it outright and express their displeasure by canceling subscriptions, not by changing the channel. If anything, its executives are spending more: Baz Luhrmann's 1970s New York period piece, The Get Down, came with a record price tag for a service that had already driven up the cost of new scripts: $120m for 12 episodes, according to Variety.

In short, television content is expensive. With fewer people watching, the advertisers are getting fed up with paying the premiums the television networks ask for, and people aren't willing to pay the real price required for good television content. Unless something changes soon, expect cheaper television shows with shorter seasons and lots of product placements within the shows.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18 2016, @06:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18 2016, @06:11PM (#415769)

    TV has the exact same problem as music.

    With music you have to compete with every greatest hit every made and decades worth of other material.

    The cost to make 1 new item is going up yet the other stuff is a fixed sunk cost. However, the value of the new item is not necessarily more than the old items. If I have 5 things and add one to it I probably add decent amount of value. If I have 1 billion things and add one item I add value but relatively tiny small amount but the cost could be huge. Movies and TV have the exact same problem. We are now at a point where we can ~90% recreate all of our TV and movie history for the past 100 years. That is a huge catalog of stuff to compete against.

    What does that have to do with your point? It is the same thing. Basically it is a dilution of value. When there were 3 channels to pick from you watched that. Now you have 500+, and the internet, and movies, and dvds, and whatever. Entertainment options over the past 30 years have exploded. Why sit through a football game that should take at most an hour and instead takes 4 because of commercial breaks and talking heads. When instead I could watch an explosion fest like star wars 7. Or DVR it and then bash through it in 45 mins but then start to realize that the game is actually technically kinda boring if your not playing it.