HBO Talking about pay-per-view online.

HBO are in talks for broadcasting over a web service like Apple TV and Google as an 'a la carte' version - in other words, pay-per-view. 

HBO Go is already on Apple TV but only for subscribers only - so this pay-per-view version makes total sense and something we blogged about before. In fact in April 2014, where we suggested (!) that the only way to go for cable TV was "to introduce pay-per-view to supplement subs".

You can search the blog top left of this page or copy here;

http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2014/04/pay-tv-is-going-to-be-in-decline.html

This will push HBO to compete with Netflix given they have 'True Detective', 'Game of Thrones' and many other quality series.

A huge amount of online viewers watch 'on demand' rather than on subscription and this will capture those. This is also now a fundamental issue for 'Sky' this side of the water and they need to take notice.

But online broadcasting, online TV, is taking a further twist. Better content online will continue to drive viewers away from traditional TV Stations. Their days are numbered.

(And thanks to Adforce's Kevin Foley for pointing it out. Always on the ball.)

Updated March 9th - HBO Announce Apple as their streaming partner so the service will be available on all Apple devices.

Online Video explodes again shows new data. Television going into freefall.

Europe's online revenue from Ads and Subscriptions through online video is skyrocketing.

It rose +51% in 2013 to 3.2 billion usd and expected to grow +41% in 2014.

In Western Europe Video on demand (VOD) grew +103% alone in 2014. One of the main drivers is ease of access to high end broadband. So the easier it is to connect online, the more online video grows and too, the ease of new devices being available on the high street.

And obviously, Traditional TV is the loser here.

Emarketer have the full report but this is only going way. TV is collapsing, online video is growing. 

That tipping point, where TV becomes irrelevant for viewers and advertisers, is not far off based on these figures.

Indeed in Ireland alone, 200,000 homes have Netflix which is ad free presenting a problem to both TV broadcasters in audience loss and to Advertisers because it's ad free.

It's also clear that Ireland's national broadcaster, RTE, would simply close without the circa 180 million they receive from Government. They cannot exist commercially and their commercial future looks dim as they face greater, better online competitors - who aren't state funded.

Pity that.....

Cable TV sinking fast. -11% audiences drop off to be replaced with online. 18% of households dropped it too. The game is up for TV.

Cable TV is sinking. Fast.

2013 was its worst year on record with a -11% decline in audiences. 

Fox, MSNBC, CNN and so on have been in decline since 2009 and largely because 82% of Americans get their news from desktops or 54% from mobile devices (according to Pew Research). But we knew that anyway.

The sharpest decline was in their lucrative primetime spots.
Yet, their advertising revenue is growing!

So what we are seeing is the time lag between audiences declining and advertisers moving to digital. More than a little crazy...but it will come. Advertising money follows audiences as sure as night follows day.

Online media is of course, showing growth as a result.

And it would seem that the core problem here is news what has traditionally been the 'hook' for TV viewing. The scheduling needs of traditional TV for their 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock breaks, means that their news is 'out of date' by that time having been broken online, earlier in the day.

Last year, over 18% of US households with a Netflix or Hulu account, dropped cable. So by not having it, obviously decreases viewing.

Traditional TV Broadcasting, is over as we know it.

Netflix bring documentaries now exclusively online. 'Mitt' is the story of Mitt Romney's Presidential bid. And you won't see it on Television.

Original online programming moves on.

Netflix now move into the Documentary space with the announcement of 'Mitt', a documentary following Mitt Romney's bid for the US Presidency. 

It starts in 2006 and goes to the loss in 2012 but what's interesting is that this is typical of "digital" film making. Not the sort of thing that would end up on TV but it can end up on Netflix. TV stations are no longer the arbiters of content, thankfully. 

Because Netflix want new and interesting, exclusive content and this is a classic example of that. They should be thanked.

It airs Jan 24.

Television at the tipping point now. Financial Times story will accelerate TV's demise.

TV is actually on a tipping point.

A lot of us take the view that traditional TV is dying at a rapid pace but Saturday's story in the illustrious 'Financial Times' will only hasten things. It's a paper well read, by CEO's and Marketing Directors.

The story is based around new Advertising spend data which shows, that after three consecutive decades of growth, it has finally peaked this year and now starting to decline - the tipping point.

TV should capture 40% of the global 532 billion usd ad market in 2013 and then start falling. That data came from none other than Publicis ZenithOptimedia, reliable a source as you'll find. That 40% share will now go into steep decline.

This is of course due to the rise of digital. 

The explosion of digital across multi-screens, was going to hit TV hardest always and in particular, the reluctance (ongoing reluctance) of TV stations to get involved with digital, has further accelerated their demise. 

A new breed of marketers too, has brought an opportunity to change and online video is also now a far sexier media buy, than traditional TV. 

For example, YouTube is surging + 50% with 66 billion usd in revenue this year. Google is also powering ahead on their GDN network.

It is good news for digital providers and another breakthrough in their fight with TV stations who went to lengths initially, to try and put them out of business. 

But like a lot of businesses that simply refuse to accept digital as even an option, they lose out. And TV is digital's biggest scalp.

The Death of TV and the stats to prove it. Landmark research from BusinessInsider.

Very, very, interesting article from BusinessInsider entitled 'The Death of TV. TV is dying and here are the stats that prove it'. It follows from research by 'Citi Research' and this is a landmark, elaborate, piece of work. 

You'll get the whole story here http://www.businessinsider.com/cord-cutters-and-the-death-of-tv-2013-11

US Pay TV (cable) is having its worst year ever. 

This links with another blog I wrote on November 8th (which follows in my posts), where Nielsen reports that tablets and mobile will be more advertising important than TV in 2016. It also follows which all of us in the business already know.....TV is dying on its feet (Streamabout is active in online video so we understand the TV market).

Audience ratings "have collapsed" and with all the major TV providers losing subscribers (about 5 million subscribers cancelling). The number of cable subscribers will drop below 40 million for the first time ever. It's something a lot of us knew, but didn't have the data to support it.

Time Warner Cable lost 306,000 cable subs and 24,000 Internet users. 

The CEO of a cable company, Charter Comms, expressed surprise that a staggering "1.3m of his 5.5m customers (a quarter) didn't want TV", they wanted broadband only packages - meaning they're switching online alright, but not to watch TV. 

Even ratings for major sporting events are in decline. Like Baseball...

Like Basketball..

So this is a real example of the shift to Internet where consumers are watching video and not, TV. They're watching shows and movies notably on mobile and probably as part of a broadband/Wifi 'deal' from a Telco. Or from the proliferation of free Wifi at a variety of stores or indeed, from city hotspots. But they're not watching traditional TV programmes, as they air live.

The other fundamental, is that more and more households, now have less "TV's" as we know them but rather, connected boxes like Apple TV or even via their Xbox or an internet set-top box. They want fast Internet access speeds with online content. Nielsen, the doyenne of TV research,  are even reporting this decline.

So if people have less "TV's", they'll watch less TV as it's aired. They now have a global choice of frankly, better content.

Mobile video is on the other hand, booming, with about 40% of all YouTube videos being watched on mobile. Staggering. And again, as you'll know, YouTube video is not TV programming in the main.

Tablets too, are being viewed more during the key TV primetime, so each device has its moment across the day. But if tablets are being used during primetime, advertising effectiveness is diluting.

Of course too, as I've blogged about so many times, Advertising money is not following this shift. Yet. 

Old habits die hard - the US TV Ad revenue is 64 Billion Dollars whilst mobile is a mere 3.4 Billion. It certainly raises questions about TV Agency buyers who are supposed to buy on the basis of data, rather than cosy "back margin" volume deals. 

Most US Advertising money goes on traditional TV by a mile. Yet TV prices are increasing reports Morgan Stanley....as indeed, bizarrely, are cable subscriptions!! Questions should be asked.

The former Time Warner boss, Glenn Britt, nailed it I think, when he said that "the cable business had spent too many years complacently dismissing the competition" and that is such a well worn lesson. 

They have also been actively producing spurious data in vain attempts to try to keep convincing clients that TV is ploughing ahead, when it's not.  

It happened in the music business, it happened in the retail video rental business, it happened in the bookseller business and now it's in the TV business. For me, this is the crux of the matter leading to this downfall.

Rather than dismissing online, they should be embracing it.

Slowly, but surely, the game is up.

The Trouble with TV.

The role of "Television" or "Broadcasting" is changing and indeed, those terms need new definitions. No longer should we think of "Television" being the sole domain of "Television stations".

After all, consumers are now watching content in a variety of different ways. It's these changes in distribution, that's the core issue.

Whether we watch content through a traditional TV set currently, it's more likely that viewers will be watching via a connected device such as Xbox or the very excellent, Apple TV next. Indeed, the myriad of choices offered by Apple TV alone, encourages viewers to watch other content than traditional TV broadcasts. It brings a lot of movie sites, YouTube channels and Social Media into the livingroom, which in turn, brings consumers massive choice. Apple TV, for a low investment, is just stunning.

Where there's global choice of content, there's likely to be less viewing of domestic traditional TV "broadcasts" and the major US networks continue to lose audiences. 

Social Media is also getting in on the act.

Twitter is trying to close the gap by becoming more involved in traditional TV through real-time conversation. Mind you, a tweet yesterday from Twitter UK saying "great to see the Xfactor bringing audiences closer and turning up the show's social soundtrack" was instantly slammed by users. Twitter are trying to become friends of the TV industry and it will fail.

Twitter wants to be the 'TV Social network' that helps build audiences which in turn, means bigger audiences for Twitter. Indeed, they're showing 60 second Ads during TV shows on Twitter as an "add on" to the programming and encouraging advertisers to sync their advertising. Take a spot at a particular time on the traditional TV show and sync it with one on Twitter.

In my view, they've tied their colours to the wrong mast.

What connected "broadcasting" devices are bringing is choice and choice that may come without Ads (such as the current online DVD boxset "binge"). A choice that means you never miss the start, the end, or forget to record a programme because online content is not hamstrung by TV schedules. 

In the online world you get content, when you want it, rather than when a broadcaster decides to push it out. That is the main structural problem with traditional TV - Scheduling....rather than viewing freedom. And it's a difficult problem for TV stations to deal with, being so ingrained in their culture.

Of course too, content makers (which includes traditional TV stations) have to get used to a new model, where they're prepared to give out that content to other networks, with the copyright/royalty issues that come with that. But they will in effect, become content providers rather than "broadcasters". 

BBC are starting on this path allowing 30 days access to content rather than a week, announced last week. Moreover, they'll allow some content to be viewed online before it has been traditionally broadcast. That's the sort of thinking required.

The development of "live" programming (notably Sports) is going to be interesting too. At the moment, few online channels, outside of traditional TV stations, have shown an interest in providing live content because of both cost and technology issues. But they might buy it in.

The difficulty with "TV" is that distribution has changed and will change completely. If TV stations are to survive it, they have to be prepared to change their model and few, it seems to me, are. They'd rather rubbish the online experience in the hope that it will go away, which it won't. And whilst they take the seat of Nero, everything changes around them, quickly.

Netflix develop original, exclusive content (winning Emmy's for their content such as 'House of Cards') but they're not the only ones as Amazon and Hulu now do the same. Big budgets too, so their content is real TV competition.

Binge viewing is driving online as well, as all the content of a particular show (the full series for example) is available same day. No longer do you have to wait for weeks to get to the ending. Movie releases are following suit with some Studios releasing Movies online first.

YouTube channels are developing at pace allowing ordinary content providers (be they members of the public or production companies) opportunities to broadcast. Awesomeness TV, a children's channel, now has a staggering 60 million viewers a month on YouTube. One YouTube gaming channel has 251 million. So these YouTube viewers have to be watching less traditional TV.

Social Media such as Twitter and Facebook are venturing into the space albeit in a collaborative way, for now. But they will develop their own content in time with News content being their initial entry.

Without any doubt, traditional TV has to change and become more online enabled and involved. Rebroadcasting of today's programmes via an App or online, doesn't cut it. It requires a complete re-think about how they create content, how they broadcast it and how they need to ditch their scheduling.

Perhaps too, they have to re brand and realise that their future lies not on what they broadcast on TV sets, but rather through their website. It's their website that's king and critically, how that content is being made available. To prioritise the web over traditional, will require in traditional broadcasters, a massive mindset shift.

All in all, it may be too late.....and in the eyes of this writer, it probably is because there is no sign of any dawn of realisation. 

None. 

It's gone past time to fight it. 

Online TV and Movie Content. It's killing Television. It's killing Cinema. It could kill Advertising because it's ad-free.

Internet-only film businesses, have really declared war on Television. Netflix have invested 100 million usd in the remake of the British series, 'House of cards' with Kevin Spacey, as you'll probably know. 

A 26 episode series that's not on Television.

Rather too, than asking people to wait week-by-week for each episode, it was all released at the same time to subscribers. Viewers could then schedule it as required, as it suited them - something which kills the rigidness of TV schedules.

Indeed they produced 6 trailers. Each one targeting the particular demographic of the Netflix subscriber. So female subscribers got the weepy trailer, young males the fight scenes - another thing you can't do on traditional TV.

Online content is also not beholden to advertisers...rather, is driven by subscriptions and subscribers on fixed monthly rates.

Consequently programme viewership fluctuations, is not the issue anymore for online broadcasters - another gaping hole in the way TV works and is funded. Netflix, with nearly 30 million subscribers, just needs to keep attracting those subscribers to stay or join the service, nothing more. Whereas, TV stations have to keep reaching out to audiences, to get them to watch, to generate Ads, when we know, through second screen viewing, their audiences are shrinking. No, Collapsing.

Netflix has already commissioned another feature, a horror called 'Hemlock Grove' and because they're not advertising dependent, they need to simply feature on quality broadcasting. 

But online broadcasters will force change too. Voice control is the future too, for Netflix rather than "gesture control" being considered by other online broadcasters (like the Xbox function). So you simply "call out" your movie and up it comes and online will eventually create too many features that will just force TV stations to close because they simply haven't the technology to match.

Online broadcasting is affecting traditional movie-making too and not just TV.

Profits in the traditional movie business are down. Between 2004-2011, the big 5 studios profits were down -40%. Time Warner for example, in generating 12 billion usd in 2012 from film, generated 14 billion usd from TV/Online. And that balance is quickly shifting away from traditional movie-making towards content making that has subscribers attached such as cable/online.

Fees to cable/subscriber channels are estimated to be in the US, about 32 billion usd a year and growing +7% annually. And it's this steady income that content makers want to chase, rather than traditional TV dependent on advertising swings and thereby, focused on shows being popular (or not). Cinema revenue for film is equally volatile with "hits" and "misses". Content makers want broadcasters with steady income.

Film Theatre/Cinema attendance is not a growth business with too many distractions, such as Netflix, at home on multiple devices. 

DVD/Blue Ray sales are obviously down too, about -46% in the past 6 years. DVD Pirating in Russia and China has become an issue too nevermind general illegal downloads. Actor and Director salaries are being cut, as are the number of projects. 

It is the likes of Netflix that has been the lifeline for Hollywood, with big talent like Spacey/Hoffman/Jeff Daniels moving away from movies into online content. 

Equally too, Netflix and Amazon's Love film are competing for broadcast rights against traditional broadcasters and have the cash war chests, to win. It's estimated that Netflix spent 5 billion usd in 2012 acquiring content.

In terms of 'connected devices' such as smartphones, games consoles, laptops, ipads and so on, Americans own 2.6 of them in each household. So the "theatrical window" of holding back online movie release is now becoming defunct to allow movies access this online market. 'Arbitrage' with Richard Gere, was released everywhere at once and understood to have made 3 times the money because it had a massive global audience at once.

But movie makers don't like it (because they'll lose the cinema premium) and theatre owners don't like it either.

So digital programme/content provision is winning time and time again meaning traditional movie makers will switch (as will talent) into creating online content. It also means traditional TV stations are getting more and more stuffed.

They're being outbid for content; they're losing audiences; they're losing money (180m+ euro a year in Ireland for RTE) every year; their content is poor; and their model has a doubtful future. 

Even their anchor product - news - is being covered better and quicker (much quicker) by national newspapers online.

This game is over.

Huffington post Live launches. A revolution in online broadcasting and an earthquake for traditional broadcasters.

Huffington Post Live (owned by AOL), a news broadcasting service of online publisher The Huffington Post, went live today. And it did so without fanfare but caused an earthquake amongst broadcasters. That's a video of Arianna Huffington's vision from 2010 which today she achieved.

"People want to be part of a story...not just consuming".

Promising 12 hours of video a day, 5 days a week initially, it intends to open us news by allowing Social Media comment and webcam interactivity. in other words, getting your views on the news. It's not just a video platform but a platform for engagement.

Rather than run pre-roll advertising or indeed banners, it asked founding sponsors to pay between 3-5 million usd for a guaranteed mention once every 2 hours and Cadillac and Verizon took up the offer. It's unlikely too that normal "ad breaks" will apply as they intend to "disrupt" traditional broadcasting models. And who'd doubt them.

Using Google hangouts for live chats, the whole sense is very engaging and with 100 professionals on their crew, it's a substantial attempt at online broadcasting.

Jonah Peretti, the co-founder of The Huffington Post was quoted as saying:

A couple years ago, we were trying unsuccessfully to sell social advertising to a market that only wanted to buy banners but things have changed dramatically since then. Now many agencies and brands are refusing to buy banners, companies that rely on traditional display units are suffering, and budgets are shifting rapidly to social advertising. One of our board members, who was initially sceptical of our decision to not run banners, recently said that “social advertising will be the biggest media business since cable television.” 

The feed (streaming) is perfect as is the overall look and feel. Have a look at the future here http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/live

It's a sensational breakthrough for news and publishing, never mind online publishing. You've possibly seen the birth today, of the world's biggest TV station although it's much much more than that. It's the world's biggest Social Media site too.

This has the potential to kill off traditional TV broadcasters as the audience migrates online and yet again, big broadcasters show no response. It is social Media Television (Twitter with moving pictures) exactly what a new generation want.

Time and time again we see large businesses who had it their own way for so long, ignore the web and just get eaten. What is this going to do to the TV audience? It's going to take their viewers globally, just like a Facebook.

Live video on demand.
It's here, it's extensive and it's a winner.

New TV Research. And yet again, it's not good.

I have blogged many times before about the demise of TV - here about VOD and Amazon Studios http://streamabout.blogspot.com/2012/05/video-on-demand-live-streaming-and-end.html 


- here about Netflix and how broadcasters are letting the Web sail by them  http://streamabout.blogspot.com/2012/04/netflix-greatest-change-in-broadcasting.html 


- here about The BAI, their ridiculous Advertising restrictions and how they'll impact on domestic TV whilst allowing online broadcasting to grow further
http://streamabout.blogspot.com/2012/04/advertising-regulators-youre-fired.html 


- here on the stunning growth of youtube http://streamabout.blogspot.com/2012/03/youtube-mashable-death-of-tv-and-henry.html 


- and here about how youtube will deliver new content better than TV  http://streamabout.blogspot.com/2012/03/youtube-is-new-tv-keep-calm-people.html. 


Spot a trend? TV is in serious, serious, difficulty and as traditional broadcasters stand idly by. Nero and Rome.


So lo and behold, only this week, out comes a new piece of research about TV and viewing habits which only adds to the woes, if, of course, they're bothered to read it (which they won't).


What it says, in a nutshell, is that traditional TV has become "moving wallpaper".


It's an extensive piece of research and UK based (so very similar to the Irish market but a good indicator european-wide) of 2,500 responders in March. 


It's recent. And shocking. 


Media buying Agencies should sit up and take note (who read this blog) because this type of data is not gathered by Nielsen as such. But anecdotally, it rings true as well as being backed by science.


Fundamentally, only 60 per cent watch TV live ("live" meaning when it's scheduled) and this makes sense - because we all know about the growth in iplayer viewership. So what seems to be happening is that more and more viewers are watching later.


Therefore, 40% do not see your commercial as it happens, and possibly not at all (if it's viewed through SKY+ or the iplayer). So you're losing audience here, hand over fist.


However, more worrying than that for broadcasters even, is that Social networking is almost as popular now as live TV. We kinda' knew that.... but what we didn't realise is that almost 4 in 10 viewers are surfing the internet on another device as they watch telly.....extraordinary and it is ringing bells. 


Two laptops open using Social Media whilst the TV is on, is regular in our house anyway- so television is becoming wallpaper. Equally we've always known the high dwell times on social media such as Facebook (2.5 hours) in the evening so it rings absolutely true. People are using Social Media while the telly is on in the background AND only 60% have it on live.


So live TV, for a lot of people, is something now quite ambient. Moving wallpaper.


That is a shocker.


This is turning TV data on its head and it so damages the traditional broadcaster's market expect that we'll find protective interests bringing forward spurious data, to protect their own interests, in reply to this.


(I noticed in press last week for example, "A new study of Irish websites has found that Irish Internet users are over three times as likely to trust Irish content sites compared to social networks and almost twice as likely over portal sites. This in turn has led to greater levels of engagement and responsiveness." Amazing.....Irish websites 3 times more likely to be trusted than social networks? So I truly scratched my head...made no sense to me. So I wondered where it came from? "The study was commissioned by the Association of Online Publishers (AOP) Ireland, the industry body representing Irish digital publishing companies". Oh okay. I get it.)


Apart from problems for TV, the Research also threw up some other interesting stuff;


- 3D has also lost its flavour as the need to wear glasses reduces its impact.


- 42 per cent say tablets are still too expensive and 27 per cent are waiting for the price to fall. But 33 per cent prefer a laptop


- Only six per cent of the survey subscribe to a music streaming service. (Which doesn't surprise me and hints further at the illegal downloads and sharing of music). Or points to a greater preference for "on demand" services  and indeed the research shows overall there's a reluctance to pay for subscription services.


- Other consumption habits are worth a note. More people read newspapers online than play online games. Just over a third - 36 per cent - gamble, but most do so only infrequently. 


- More people now listen to internet radio (18 per cent) than rent DVDs (13 per cent). And 14 per cent admit to watching porn (with a possible another 86% lying....)


- Apple scores highly as an innovative brand (31 per cent), but the most "boring" brands are Facebook and Twitter.


And last from The Telegraph "The online poll of 1,959 consumers also found that the potential damage to publishing is likely to increase, as a quarter of those who admitted to e-book piracy said they would continue." I would agree.


This Research is another landmark in the TV online revolution and this time it's extensive, it's scientific, it's black & white. 


But most broadcasters will choose to ignore it. Rubbish it. Demean it.


As they slowly lose their business.
Shame.