SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The BBC is abandoning linear exclusivity as it goes for broke to make the iPlayer a global Netflix rival. The corporation says it will throw entire series on to the on-demand streaming service before the first episode in a series is even broadcast on terrestrial TV.
Director-General Tony Hall will call for the BBC to "reinvent public broadcasting for a new generation in order to compete against giants such as Netflix and Amazon" this morning.
Hall has set two targets: double the number of visits to iPlayer and quadruple the time a user spends on the iPlayer site by 2020.
Established broadcasters have faced increasing pressure from OTT providers in recent years. Netflix spent more on content (buying and licensing it) than the BBC or HBO last year. Netflix made "binge watching" series cheap and easy – previously you'd need to buy an expensive box set, and those usually sold to fans.
But for the BBC to follow suit and dump entire series on the internet at once means surrendering one of its key advantages: its ability to create artificial scarcity. Withholding episodes creates "event TV" – a common cultural experience – and results in increased attention. As Enders Analysis points out, live viewing has fallen 19 per cent since 2010 as time-shifted viewing making up about 40 per cent of the decline. "Linear remains vital," the consultancy warns.
Is "event TV" still a thing for non-sports programming?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @11:08AM
The iPlayer has always been global.
There's one script that checks your geolocation and absolutely everything else can be streamed locally from localized content delivery networks.
The trick to it has always been to request that one script through a UK proxy and request the rest normally.
So what's new, they're planning to disable the geolocation script?
What a load of bollocks.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by anubi on Thursday January 12 2017, @11:18AM
No. Its been a long time since I scheduled *anything* around a TV broadcast.
I did when I was a kid, but that was over a half-century ago, and TV was new.
Now, there is a time and place for nearly everything in my life, and I plan my time around other people, not TV.
Sorry, NAB, but you are sucking hind tit in my book. Not to say I do not like you. Its that I can timeshift you with a machine. It was all recorded anyway. Another few days/weeks/months/years won't change it. If I am still around, I may get around to it.
Over the past few years, a few people have made trying to watch TV programs so frustrating that I consider you guys won. I threw in the towel years ago.
Now, if I do watch any TV, its in the background, usually tuned to one of those old movie channels, or BUZZR. Especially What's My Line, I've Got a Secret, or To Tell the Truth. Those do bring back fond memories of my first experiences with TV as a kid.
Incidentally, even to this day, I still use the Suave shampoo advertised in those old commercials. Walmart still has it. Never did break that habit. Mom used it.
If you can get the moms, you got the kids. If you annoy the hell out of us with ads, you are just gonna get switched off.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:08PM
The last "event" for me was the presidential debates (on youtube). Nothing other than those.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:41PM
I wonder about those reality/competition shows with text-voting.
Apparently, more people voted for American Idol than for President [itv.com] (in 2012) so I'd imagine it's still a popular TV event.
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @11:30AM
torrents
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 12 2017, @12:46PM
Not for me. My only "event TV" source is currently a pair of rabbit ears that stay in a collapsed state roughly 360 days a year. I only extend them to catch live local weather when a storm system that looks like it might get tornadic is rolling in a few times a year. I really do not miss being at the mercy of what the chuckleheads decide should air when I want to watch something. At all.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:40PM
I can think of a few other categories of programs on American TV with extremely short shelf life:
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday January 12 2017, @05:44PM
I think for CERTAIN audiences and for CERTAIN shows (mostly very popular shows), there can still be a sense of "event TV" for people, especially those over 35 or 40 who grew up without necessarily using time-shifting all the time. (Yes, time-shifting has been easy since VCRs became popular in the 1980s, but it really boomed in the early 2000s or so with the introduction of TiVo and other more convenient video recorders.)
I know plenty of folks who would be waiting for the next episode of Breaking Bad or Downton Abbey or Game of Thrones or whatever to show on TV, to take a few somewhat recent examples. (Yes, I know the first two have been off the air for a few years.) Regarding the BBC, it seems like Sherlock has had that sort of pull too, though audience fluctuations have been going down and up quite a bit.
And even with time-shifting capabilities, that doesn't mean that there can't still be a sense of an "event" -- it's just often "smeared out" over a day or two. A lot of people watch stuff as it airs, but then you get a lot of folks who watch it as soon as they get a chance over the next 48 hours. It's pretty clear if you look at internet forums dealing with TV shows that there are significant groups of audiences just waiting for shows to go comment immediately. If you're commenting a week later because you time-shifted, you probably missed 97% of the conversation on the episode. (I don't participate in such forums, because I frankly don't watch a lot of TV, but for a few shows I've occasionally been interested in what people might be saying about it online... and I'm often rather surprised at how fast conversations swell and then die off. Even for "binge-watch" releases of entire seasons, if you haven't watched them all within a week, you may have missed the conversation.)
So, while we probably have fewer and fewer cases of the family gathered around at 9:00pm on Thursday (or whatever) to watch a show, that doesn't mean there isn't SOME excitement or buzz generated around periodically releasing episodes, rather than dumping a season at once.
Also, maybe this indicates my bias, I'd just like to note my ambivalence about the whole binge-watching phenomenon. Of course I've done it. But I've found that my perception and memory of TV shows has suffered for it. Not that most TV shows deserve a great deal of intellectual attention, but I think we process shows completely differently when they are spread out. We know how memory works -- sleep is essential to processing stuff each day, for example. We know that if you're trying to learn something new (like, say, playing the piano or learning a language), it's probably better to practice 10-15 minutes every day rather than spend several hours only once per month. For GOOD TV shows (and I know everyone will have a different opinion of what they think is "good," but for whatever YOU personally like), having a periodic engagement over weeks, months, or even years lets things "stew" in your brain a bit. Mysteries become more intense. Big reveals become more shocking. Do you really get the same experience binge-watching the entirety of an entire series over a week as you would seeing the gradual changes and shifts and drama unfold week-to-week over several years?
I still recall a few shocking reveals on TV series I watched as a kid and how they made the whole experience compelling. But for series that I've binge-watched in the past few years, I can barely differentiate among the timeline of the show.... even though I KNOW some of them had extremely shocking things happen many times too. A final thought about this -- we used to serialize other stuff too. Like novels, which frequently were published in the 1800s and early 1900s in weekly or monthly segments in literary magazines. Again, I have a completely different experience when I think of books I've read gradually with a chapter or two each day vs. the "binge-reading" of a page turner where I finished the book in a day or two.
Not to say that one experience is necessarily better than another. But they certainly are DIFFERENT.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:07PM
I think for CERTAIN audiences and for CERTAIN shows (mostly very popular shows), there can still be a sense of "event TV" for people, especially those over 35 or 40 who grew up without necessarily using time-shifting all the time.
That and for people who stopped time-shifting when they discovered that unlike a $200 VCR, a TiVo DVR requires an "All In" subscription for $549.99 plus tax if you don't want it to suddenly stop working one day. That and during the switch to DVRs, expanded basic cable switched from analog in the clear to encrypted digital, and associating a DVR with a CableCARD was a hassle.
It's pretty clear if you look at internet forums dealing with TV shows that there are significant groups of audiences just waiting for shows to go comment immediately. If you're commenting a week later because you time-shifted, you probably missed 97% of the conversation on the episode.
A similar phenomenon occurs in discussions on SoylentNews and Slashdot, which see most of their traffic in the first three hours or so.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:15PM
Is "event TV" still a thing for non-sports programming?
Well, the BBC hasn't said which shows it is going to pre-release online. I don't see "Celebrity Singing Bakeoff On Ice"-type shows working well in boxset format - how do you do the phone voting? OK, the BBC is under pressure to make less of such "commercial" shows (and they keep losing them to other channels) but I don't see them going away.
Then, the BBC drama output is a mixture of very short-run (by US standards - like, "Sherlock" gets 3 episodes per season, although they are long) series which are ideal for boxsets, and soaps that run perpetually (EastEnders, Casualty/Holby) which I suspect lots of viewers do plan their day around.
Then there's news. I wish they'd release an entire year's news in advance as a boxset. Then we could have skipped 2016...
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:18PM
Is "event TV" still a thing for non-sports programming?
...not really. The only other "TV Events" that spring to mind are soap operas. Broadcasters - and the BBC are good at this - love to build up big story events in their soaps periodically to get everybody to tune in on a particular evening (Who shot Phil?) and given the indefinite nature of soaps it wouldn't ever be possible to move them to a fully non-linear broadcast model.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @05:17PM
After getting burned by too many mid-season cancellations I stopped watching all non-episodic shows until they had at least an entire season fully-released.
It isn't that I necessarily binge-watch, although I do, its just that once I had a choice, I was no longer going to let the networks screw me anymore.
One thing I've noticed is that even when I have an entire season to watch, if the reviews ultimately end up being shitty, its really (mentally) easy to just delete it instead of giving it a chance. That's probably because there are sooo many shows to pick from.
As more of the population adopts this attitude, its going to change tv production a lot. I'm not sure how though. We are definitely at a point where quality shows are the most bountiful they've ever been. Will the market contract? Or will show production costs get cheap enough to sustain such high levels of production despite a mostly flat level of available eyeball-hours spent on watching?
It also helps that a 60-minute show is only 40-minutes now without commercials. Although the incidence of deadly-boring product placement (look at the features of this great car the lead character is driving this week!) are at an all-time high.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:41PM
Dear BBC and other streaming TV series producers:
I got tired of the Gilligan's Island formula in the 70's. That is, where you can interchange the episodes into any order and it doesn't matter. All conditions are reset back to initial conditions by the end of each episode.
I loved Babylon 5 for breaking this mold. But it wasn't a soap opera that goes on and on, it is a story with a definite and planned ending.
More TV series started making the entire series tell a continuing story. The problem is that they didn't have any planned end to the story. When ratings go down, it gets abruptly cancelled. Possibly on a cliffhanger. If it goes on long enough without getting cancelled it is obvious that they are not going anywhere and just making it up as they go along to waste your time. I want a story to enjoy. Not a story that just drags me around and never pays off with an ending.
Another thing that happens is someone comes up with a great idea for a series. That is, season 1. It gets made. It has a great story. It has an ending that is open for a potential season 2. When season 2 is made it does not have the overall vision of a single person who conceived the first season. It gradually just goes off the rails. What unexpected or outrageous thing can we do to this character? (A thing that you can't take back. And ruins the character.)
Babylon 5's ending is extremely satisfying. Like reading a good book. The book doesn't just end in the middle.
Maybe some new TV series will figure out that they need to make a novel or an epic novel. It has a beginning, middle and end. Make in some number of seasons that can be financed. (Netflix can be helpful in that regard, as they have sometimes approved new series without a pilot, and sometimes approved more than one season to be produced.) If you can't make multiple seasons, then just make one and call it good. But make it like a complete book. Heck, even a mini series that is captivating and has a great ending. Movies are like that, but they're usually too short. Babylon 5 is an epic story that takes five seasons, and still had room for prequels and spin off series, and new stories that take place in its future.
As for product placement -- Don't Do It. For example, back when I watched cable tv, I gave the new Hawaii Five O a look. All the characters are supposed to be cool and smart. But they all use Windows Phones? WTF? Not even believable. Nobody uses Windows Phone. I'm outta here.
Which brings me to present day. I have no cable. No network tv. Only internet on demand streaming. I pay and I expect NO commercials and NO product placement. If you can't make enough money to produce the shows, then raise the subscription price, don't start advertising or product placement.
I'll add just one more thing about ads (and indirectly product placement). Advertising is a cancer. It destroys every medium in which it ever exists. Like pollution. It starts out acceptable. Then moves to merely tolerable. Then annoying. Then there are bugs of people walking on screen over the content of the program right after a commercial. Sometimes these animated ads over the content obscure important elements of the program, and nobody cares because they let this happen. Then people fight back. Then product placement happens which is a direct admission that ads have gone too far but the tv network is so addicted that they can't help themselves and need intervention. Ads are why people went from network broadcast to cable. Cable was going to be ad free. But they let it creep in and look what happens. Then people fought back with TiVos. And then people voted with their feet and wallet once internet streaming became available. Don't put ads on internet streaming or the same thing will happen. It will start out tiny. A little crack in the dam. Just like web sites. A few ads at first. Then in a couple years an article is one page per paragraph, with that paragraph surrounded by a ton of blinking flashing dancing jumping seizure inducing ads. Ads are a cancer.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @07:23PM
The BBC is actually good at making single-season shows. They also avoid that american failing of packing them with filler episodes. One 8 episode BBC show often tells more story in a more engaging fashion than one 22 episode american show.
(Score: 1) by Gault.Drakkor on Friday January 13 2017, @02:09AM
As to advertising and product placement.
Product placement as advertising in TV was one of the earliest forms. Why do you think 'soaps' are named so? From the outright sponsorship of the early entries.
I like what "Age of persuasion" argues at one point. (Paraphrasing this from memory). Ads are a contract, they request time from the viewer, they should offer something in return, in most cases entertainment. If you get no value, then they are not a good add, the contract is broken.
I don't mind ads if they truly give me something of value in exchange for my time, which is getting to be a rarity. Mostly they cost us and those adds suck.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 13 2017, @03:12PM
As I pointed out, ads always start out acceptable. Then tolerable. Yet they end up eventually destroying every form of media which ever has ads. Greed is insatiable. Also, it is easier to just reduce the content time and stuff in more ads and product placement than to recognize that the landscape is changing and you should reconsider your business model. Many newspapers did not do that. Cable TV did not do that.
In the end, I realize that I would rather pay for the content and have zero ads.
Advertisers know no bounds. The web makes this obvious. Ad networks have distributed malware. Ad networks have no vetting of the advertiser and will take money from anyone for anything, just like a street whore.
Advertisers will lobby to put ads on the inside of our eyelids once the technology becomes available. Mark my words.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday January 12 2017, @05:41PM
The BBC was created to fill a void. One that obviously no longer exists. They are abandoning the over the air viewer that was their stated reason to exist. Therefore why not ask the question of "Why does the BBC still exist?"
We should be asking the same question about the U.S.'s Corporation for Public Broadcasting as well.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @07:26PM
> They are abandoning the over the air viewer that was their stated reason to exist.
No, that was not their stated reason to exist.
Their stated reason to exist was to provide programming not subject to commercial influence.
That hasn't changed.
Same with the CPB.
Nice try with the rationalizing canards though. Living up to the same high standards as usual.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:11PM
Is "event TV" still a thing for non-sports programming?
Yes, for the Oscars, Brit Awards, Golden Globe Awards, live coverage of world events, etc.
For entertainment. Emphatically NOT, and for me hasn't been since recording was available. I developed the habit years ago of watching things at least 30-40 minutes later so I could skip all commercials. Now in the age of streaming, I get instant gratification, no commercials, and the ability to binge. So no, "event" television may exist in the eyes of TV execs, and a few old timers who never got the VHS memo, but otherwise, for anything not happening in real-time in the real world, it hasn't been a thing for a very long time.