dslreports logo
 story category
Netflix Appears to Be Eating Nickelodeon Viewers
As Cable and Broadcast Industry Remains Stuck in Denial
On the heels of new Nielson data showing that cord cutting is not the mythical beast the cable industry pretends it is, futher data indicates that Netflix streaming is having a dramatic impact on at least one segment of traditional TV viewing. Kid-focused channel Nickelodeon is seeing double digit viewership drops of late, raising the question of whether Netflix is partially responsible. Nickelodeon owner Viacom CEO swears that's not the case, but examining the actual data involved there appears to be a direct relationship between Netflix and the children's channel's nose dive:
quote:
Bernstein pulled out about 9,500 Netflix streamers and 9,500 non-streamers from a sample of about 35,000 TiVo set-top users. Analyzing viewership of the two groups over the first quarter, Bernstein found that usage among streamers of Nickeloden’s flagship channel dropped 6 percent from the year-over-year average; viewing also declined a whopping 11 percent for Nick Toons and Teen Nick. For non-streamers, ratings actually grew 2 percent for Nickelodeon, 5 percent for Nick Toons and 26 percent for Teen Nick (a huge 37 percent differential).
Where's the biggest hit originating? Customers aren't tuning in to re-runs of syndicated shows when they can get them from their Netflix subscription. Publicly, cable and broadcast executives continue to pretend that Internet video doesn't pose a threat, but privately -- these kinds of viewership hits are the precise reason why the cable and broadcast industry are trying their best to strangle Netflix with licensing rate hikes and new usage caps and overage fees.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next

Netflix Cust
@spanx.com

Netflix Cust

Anon

I believe this.

My kids love Netflix. They love being able to watch what they want and when they want on their devices Android Tablet, 3DS, and Roku.
If you looked at my netflix account it's all kid shows because they are the primary users.

silliwood
@qwest.net

silliwood

Anon

Re: I believe this.

I haven't been supporting the industry for years, due to their arcane mentality. When the networks wake up and realize the days of shagging people for 80-100 bucks a month for entertainment are coming to an end, when I may decide to "buy" into the scene. We feed these movie and cable networks billions of dollars over the course of a few decades, and they are just kicking and screaming at the idea of not being able to profit as they used to, and hold onto the last bit of control they have, by releasing shows much later than they should,etc.

At the end of the day, their actions only reinforce my decision to not support the movie/music/cable tv industry - biting the hand that feeds as usual, when will they learn.

codyyy
@embarqhsd.net

codyyy to Netflix Cust

Anon

to Netflix Cust
y does it even matter that Nickelodeon loses viewers to netflix there shows are still being watched, just on netflix
azradio
KG7JQM
Premium Member
join:2003-12-29
85139

azradio

Premium Member

Re: I believe this.

Because you can't run spots on Netflix. They only get a few pennies (if that) per view online... That's all part of how the major networks make deals with streaming providers. For an indie film company it's great... For a major network... It's not so much. The big TV networks are used to a lot larger ROI than that.

It does beg the question if the new medium can still be profitable while still maintaining the production quality we're all used to.
ricep55
join:2000-01-31
Wheaton, IL

ricep55 to Netflix Cust

Member

to Netflix Cust
+1. Netflix is the perfect DVD/Cable Rerun substitute for kids.

- Living Room TV
- Computer
- Tablet, typically over 3G in the car
- Easy to find cartoons, catalogued by type

My 4 year old has stopped watching DVD's pretty much. It used to be Redbox, now it's the wealthy collection on Netflix. Now he can select his cartoons himself (with our supervision). His discovery of the Superman collection from 1940's is classic. He loves them.

The best kids entertainment tool since the DS.
Expand your moderator at work

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

One channel indicates a global trend?

Basic logic is still going to dictate that on a large scale, it's always going to be cheaper to deliver video in a single broadcast feed than to deliver it via independent viewer-specific feeds.

The automobile did not spell the end of the train.

The use of aircraft in shipping operations did not end the viability of container ships.

This whole assertion that Internet-based content delivery using unicast flows is going to completely replace broadcast video is so hopelessly out of touch with reality that it's comical.
mogamer
join:2011-04-20
Royal Oak, MI

mogamer

Member

Re: One channel indicates a global trend?

said by SpaethCo:

Basic logic is still going to dictate that on a large scale, it's always going to be cheaper to deliver video in a single broadcast feed than to deliver it via independent viewer-specific feeds.

The automobile did not spell the end of the train.

The use of aircraft in shipping operations did not end the viability of container ships.

This whole assertion that Internet-based content delivery using unicast flows is going to completely replace broadcast video is so hopelessly out of touch with reality that it's comical.

True, but in this country at least, the automobile pretty much killed the passenger train and for intercontinental travel, aircraft have killed passenger ships. So new technology does replace certain segments of existing technology.

Hopefully cable channels get consolidated allowing reruns to be replaced by original programming that is so spread out. Then those reruns can move down to streaming.
desarollo
join:2011-10-01
Monroe, MI

desarollo to SpaethCo

Member

to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:

Basic logic is still going to dictate that on a large scale, it's always going to be cheaper to deliver video in a single broadcast feed than to deliver it via independent viewer-specific feeds.

...

This whole assertion that Internet-based content delivery using unicast flows is going to completely replace broadcast video is so hopelessly out of touch with reality that it's comical.

Basic logic doesn't adequately cover the situation.

Whereas it may be cheaper in terms of a transport mechanism, that point is moot if the channel isn't being viewed or as is the case with many cable networks, not producing enough revenue to be self-sufficient.

It also ignores the fact that traditional broadcasters (over the air) are actually more inefficient than 20 years ago. They still maintain huge RF transmission plants for what, 15%, 20% of the market? If cable and satellite providers don't take their feeds via fiber, they pull it off-air. So these huge plants consume vast amounts of electricity for whatever small percentage of the market still uses off-air reception, plus one for the cable/satellite head-end if that even applies.

It may not not be cheaper now, but it is moving that way. And what should worry broadcasters (both OTA and cable), is that this really calls them out on the quality of their product. Given a choice and given the opportunity of sufficient bandwidth, consumers are looking elsewhere. I don't think it has anything to do with price and everything to do with wanting to watch better product when the consumer has the time to dedicate to viewing.

Appointment TV is long dead, that's been killed by time shifting. With rate hikes coupled with cheap reality programming, the consumer is going elsewhere and traditional network and niche channel TV may very well be next.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: One channel indicates a global trend?

said by desarollo:

Whereas it may be cheaper in terms of a transport mechanism, that point is moot if the channel isn't being viewed or as is the case with many cable networks, not producing enough revenue to be self-sufficient.

Once you have the infrastructure to broadcast one channel, each incremental channel is a marginal increase in cost. The biggest cost is in getting a signal there in the first place.
said by desarollo:

It also ignores the fact that traditional broadcasters (over the air) are actually more inefficient than 20 years ago. They still maintain huge RF transmission plants for what, 15%, 20% of the market?

An antenna that has long since been paid for, and transponder equipment that has maybe been refreshed a couple time in the last 50 years? That's not exactly a huge investment.
said by desarollo:

It may not not be cheaper now, but it is moving that way.

Even if bandwidth were completely free, the costs associated with power and cooling required for the compute and network infrastructure to transition to full unicast feeds would still continue to increase. There are only so many video feeds you can push through a content engine with 10GigE interfaces, and the more feeds the more back-end SAN, caching, content engines, and network infrastructure you need in place to make that happen.
said by desarollo:

Appointment TV is long dead, that's been killed by time shifting.

So sports bars primarily show time-shifted content?

There are still major segments of the broadcast market that are heavily reliant on live broadcasts of real-time events. Sports entertainment is a huge market, and will continue to be best served in a broadcast model for the foreseeable future.

Network shows like "The Bachelor(ette)" still spawn viewing parties and reaction websites, and shows like "American Idol" encourage real-time audience voting.

Time shifting is definitely a very valid usage model, but the most efficient mechanism for dealing with that is local capture (ie, DVR). I think options like Dish Network's "Primetime Anytime" that records all network channels every single night so that you can watch previous shows without setting up recordings is a preview of the type of technology that will win out in future years.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984 to SpaethCo

Premium Member

to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:

Basic logic is still going to dictate that on a large scale, it's always going to be cheaper to deliver video in a single broadcast feed than to deliver it via independent viewer-specific feeds.

The automobile did not spell the end of the train.

The use of aircraft in shipping operations did not end the viability of container ships.

This whole assertion that Internet-based content delivery using unicast flows is going to completely replace broadcast video is so hopelessly out of touch with reality that it's comical.

Your comment makes no sense. Moving electrons does not compare to moving things with varying weight down the street.

For internet, bandwidth is so cheap that unicast on-demand streams have not much of an extra cost than one multicast stream. Every day it gets cheaper.
Netflix somehow has no problem pulling away multicast cable customers with their unicast on-demand for a cheaper price.

The way you get the content either multicast or unicast is insignificant to the costs of the network.
The real concern is content costs when we no long pay for the things we dont like.
wheelbarrow
join:2010-01-06
USA

wheelbarrow

Member

Eh..

Netflix is probably partially responsible for the drop in viewers, while the rest of the responsibility falls on iCarly.

The shows on Nickelodeon these days are NOTHING like they used to be. Back in the mid-late 90s and early 2000s were the golden days. Mostly everything on any Nickelodeon channel these days is pure garbage.

swintec
Premium Member
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME

swintec

Premium Member

Re: Eh..

said by wheelbarrow:

Netflix is probably partially responsible for the drop in viewers, while the rest of the responsibility falls on iCarly.

The shows on Nickelodeon these days are NOTHING like they used to be. Back in the mid-late 90s and early 2000s were the golden days. Mostly everything on any Nickelodeon channel these days is pure garbage.

While I agree with you, it is a generation thing. The kids of around this time will be saying the same thing about Nickelodeon when they get to our age. Nickelodeon isnt going to design shows for "old"people....they are a "kids" network.

Speaking of which, remember Nick Arcade and Double Dare?
wheelbarrow
join:2010-01-06
USA

wheelbarrow

Member

Re: Eh..

Maybe, maybe not. Were the shows back then designed for old people? Most likely not. At least back then, the shows were more wholesome.

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi

Member

Re: Eh..

said by wheelbarrow:

Maybe, maybe not. Were the shows back then designed for old people? Most likely not. At least back then, the shows were more wholesome.

The shows were not more wholesome. I can tell you the world was a lot more violent and hostile when I grew up.

banditws6
Shrinking Time and Distance
Premium Member
join:2001-08-18
Frisco, TX

1 edit

banditws6 to swintec

Premium Member

to swintec
I think you're exactly right on this. We remember fondly those things which shaped us or affected us in a positive way as the "pinnacle" of the medium. I was just musing on this the other day, when I saw a trending topic on Twitter where all of the participants were so excited that Nick was rerunning stuff from the mid '90s during late nights. And I had to laugh, because by the mid '90s I was already lamenting how Out of Control and You Can't Do That On Television -- the stuff I grew up with -- were really representative of Nick's heyday.

It's all relative.

Edit: Well, mostly. I just took a look at Nick's schedule...what, do they just run Spongebob and Kung Fu Panda all day? Perhaps wheelbarrow See Profile has a point.

swintec
Premium Member
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME

swintec

Premium Member

Re: Eh..

said by banditws6:

You Can't Do That On Television -- the stuff I grew up with -- were really representative of Nick's heyday.

I used to love you cant do that on television. I guess they were in reruns by the late 80s but that is my earliest memory of Nickelodeon. That and when NickToons came out.

motorola870
join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX

motorola870 to swintec

Member

to swintec
said by swintec:

said by wheelbarrow:

Netflix is probably partially responsible for the drop in viewers, while the rest of the responsibility falls on iCarly.

The shows on Nickelodeon these days are NOTHING like they used to be. Back in the mid-late 90s and early 2000s were the golden days. Mostly everything on any Nickelodeon channel these days is pure garbage.

While I agree with you, it is a generation thing. The kids of around this time will be saying the same thing about Nickelodeon when they get to our age. Nickelodeon isnt going to design shows for "old"people....they are a "kids" network.

Speaking of which, remember Nick Arcade and Double Dare?

figure it out is making a return! But they are calling it a new show instead of giving note to its roots at the old nickelodeon studios in Orlando, Florida.

I think over the last few years Nickelodeon is not putting effort in showing quality shows too many repeats of the same shows and not showing older shows.

Also look at Nicktoons which has been trashed as it shows only new nicktoons and live action shows. No 90s nicktoons or even early 2000s nicktoons.

swintec
Premium Member
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME

swintec

Premium Member

Re: Eh..

said by motorola870:

figure it out is making a return! But they are calling it a new show instead of giving note to its roots at the old nickelodeon studios in Orlando, Florida.

Was that the show with Summer Sanders? God was she hot back when she hosted that. Part of the reason I would watch it, but that was around the time the network started its downward spiral.
Happydude32
Premium Member
join:2005-07-16

Happydude32

Premium Member

Re: Eh..

Yep. Looking her up, she was 25 when that show first aired, she'll be turning 40 this year. Good ole' Billy The Answer Head.
Happydude32

Happydude32 to wheelbarrow

Premium Member

to wheelbarrow
From midnight to 6AM on Teen Nick there's a programming block called 'The 90s are All That'. It includes All That, Keenan & Kel and rotating Nicktoons. Sometimes Doug, sometimes Rugrats, it varies. Shows like Clarissa Explains It All, Hey Dude, Solute your Shorts and Are You Afraid Of The Dark have al aired in the past year or so. Occasionally they throw in some of the classic bumpers from the ‘90s.

I’ll occasionally watch iCarly. It’s somewhat entertaining, and well Miranda Crossgrove turned into quite the little hottie.

SevenOfNine
@optonline.net

SevenOfNine to wheelbarrow

Anon

to wheelbarrow
said by wheelbarrow:

Netflix is probably partially responsible for the drop in viewers, while the rest of the responsibility falls on iCarly.

The shows on Nickelodeon these days are NOTHING like they used to be. Back in the mid-late 90s and early 2000s were the golden days. Mostly everything on any Nickelodeon channel these days is pure garbage.

Late 90s early 00's golden days???? Apparently you haven't seen Double Dare and You Can't Do That On Television. Even Guts, Legends of the Hidden Temple, Hey Dude and Salute Your Shorts were far better shows than the ones in that time period. But I guess due to your age that must be "golden" for you I suppose.
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
united state

b10010011

Member

Nickelodeon is eating its self

When have they even came close to the programming quality of:
Ren & Stinpy
Doug
Rugrats
Invader Zim
Angry Beavers
Ahh, Real Monsters
Fairly Odd Parents
Avatar (not that lame James Cameron flick)
The Amanda Show
Clarissa Explains it All
You Can't Do That on Television

They certainly can not survive on All Sponge Bob all the time.
wheelbarrow
join:2010-01-06
USA

wheelbarrow

Member

Re: Nickelodeon is eating its self

Agreed. In addition to those shows, I still miss:

Jimmy Neutron
Hey Arnold
Rocket Power
CatDog

djdanska
Rudie32
Premium Member
join:2001-04-21
San Diego, CA

djdanska

Premium Member

Re: Nickelodeon is eating its self

Most of those are on Netflix! LoL

saladbar15
join:2009-07-18
Brighton, MA

saladbar15

Member

Re: Nickelodeon is eating its self

I've been watching Avatar through Netflix nightly for the past few weeks. I can't believe I forgot so much of such a memorable show.

So yes, I am definitely a part of this trend. And I have no shame.

KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium Member
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD

KoolMoe to wheelbarrow

Premium Member

to wheelbarrow
Jimmy Neutron!
Ah, then degrades into the Sheen spinoff...then just not around...(sigh)

djdanska
Rudie32
Premium Member
join:2001-04-21
San Diego, CA

djdanska

Premium Member

nick toons

I stopped watching nick toons cause they went from reruns of invader zim, fairly oddparents, and Jimmy neutron to anime. They added them on Netflix so guess where I went?
turnerbrewer
join:2011-11-22

turnerbrewer

Member

Re: nick toons

We ditched DirecTv over a year ago. We have a Apple TV in the living room. I replaced the satellite box in my 11 year old sons room with a Roku box. My son loves Netflix for the TV shows and Movies. If Netflix was around in 2004, I would have cancelled Pay TV back then... I rarely hit my 200GB Comcast internet cap. I am glad to see another "chink" in the pay TV armor

ropeguru
Premium Member
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

ropeguru to djdanska

Premium Member

to djdanska
said by djdanska:

I stopped watching nick toons cause they went from reruns of invader zim, fairly oddparents, and Jimmy neutron to anime. They added them on Netflix so guess where I went?

And of course the biggest thing not touched as to why they moved to Netflix?

I say it is because the same shows are available to watch on Netflix ANYTIME they want to and aren't subjected to specific time slots.

Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium Member
join:2000-08-05
united state

Snakeoil

Premium Member

Why is Netflix always the blame?

You have Hulu plus, Red Box, Amazon prime, yourtube/other cartoon streaming sites as well.

My kids go to youtube, or other [not sure what] streaming sites for the shows they like on Nick. Also for their Anime. They'd use Netflix, but my wife and I tend to have it tied up.

••••
nonymous (banned)
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ

nonymous (banned)

Member

Quite please. No telling.

Part of reason I could cut cord completely. Between Netflix streaming and DVDs and OTA my six year old has more than he should watch. So cutting the cord was easy.
Thing is I am sure Netflix is also paying them so stop whining.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72

Member

Say What

I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed that the data was pulled from Tivo DVR's (they call them set top boxes which they are NOT). I'm sure you guys know that Tivo users have to pay $$$ for their DVR's and these are technologically sensitive viewers, meaning I don't know a lot of people who own Tivo's who aren't aware of the streaming options and use them. Of course one would rather stream on demand old shows because as you know in syndication they only play a subset of the shows and that gets boring fast. The fact that newer shows viewership is up makes sense.

What is broken is the ad model, because those people on Tivos are probably DVR'ing the shows, skipping the ads--and thankfully Netflix has no ads so life is good.

Anyways they couldn't have taken a more biased study if I ever saw one. If they wanted to do a good job, they should have studied households with no DVR, no internet, and ones w/ internet and DVR. Duh.

If they took away all of the reruns and streamed them you could probably remove 60-70% of the cable feed right there. By doing that these guys could reclaim all that bandwidth and swap it to on-demand and then they can adequately compete w/ the likes of Netflix without having to run through a CDN.

The whole model is ancient, bloated, and inefficient--ripe for disruption. Broadcasting new content is currently more efficient, however old is not. On demand will always be better for that.

aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
Asus RT-AX89

aaronwt

Premium Member

Re: Say What

said by elefante72:

I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed that the data was pulled from Tivo DVR's (they call them set top boxes which they are NOT). I'm sure you guys know that Tivo users have to pay $$$ for their DVR's and these are technologically sensitive viewers, meaning I don't know a lot of people who own Tivo's who aren't aware of the streaming options and use them. Of course one would rather stream on demand old shows because as you know in syndication they only play a subset of the shows and that gets boring fast. The fact that newer shows viewership is up makes sense.

What is broken is the ad model, because those people on Tivos are probably DVR'ing the shows, skipping the ads--and thankfully Netflix has no ads so life is good.

Anyways they couldn't have taken a more biased study if I ever saw one. If they wanted to do a good job, they should have studied households with no DVR, no internet, and ones w/ internet and DVR. Duh.

If they took away all of the reruns and streamed them you could probably remove 60-70% of the cable feed right there. By doing that these guys could reclaim all that bandwidth and swap it to on-demand and then they can adequately compete w/ the likes of Netflix without having to run through a CDN.

The whole model is ancient, bloated, and inefficient--ripe for disruption. Broadcasting new content is currently more efficient, however old is not. On demand will always be better for that.

The info is there from TiVo since they keeep track of all that content already. It would be more difficult to get info from houses that aren't already setup to collect data like the ones with TiVos.
AndyDufresne
Premium Member
join:2010-10-30
Chanhassen, MN
Ubiquiti EdgeRouter ERPro8
Netgear R7000

AndyDufresne

Premium Member

More about Nick programing than Netflix.

This just shows the value that parent put on Nick programming. There is no must see Nick program, so parents obviously notice they can save some money by going Netflix route and kids will be just as happy.

Netflix has noticed this and is running more ads point out the huge volume of kids programming they have available not to mention they also have given folks the option of making kis progamming being the default menu.

Don't think Cartoon Network will have same numbers since TW like to keep more control over content.

Spike5
Premium Member
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON

Spike5

Premium Member

Hollywood hates Netflix

Expect a ton of childhood content to suddenly vanish on Netflix after the next round of contract renegotiations/renewals....

Hollywood can blow me.

YukonHawk
join:2001-01-07
Patterson, NY

YukonHawk

Member

Re: Hollywood hates Netflix

Hollywood is fat, old and bloated.
jeffreydean1
join:2010-05-31

jeffreydean1 to Spike5

Member

to Spike5
said by Spike5:

Expect a ton of childhood content to suddenly vanish on Netflix after the next round of contract renegotiations/renewals....

Hollywood can blow me.

They remove the content from the service I get it fro legally now, and I will pirate it and my kids will thank me. Nobody who's seen the light of what you want when you want it programming will go back to the archaic system of pay cable.
slckusr
Premium Member
join:2003-03-17
Greenville, SC

slckusr

Premium Member

It might be true

A few of my friends have kids, and I notice them watching netflix kids shows with the xbox(not on the pc). In most cases they have cable with Nickelodeon as well. So from my perspective this could be true.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Doesn't Netflix PAY Nickelodeon?

I'm pretty sure Netflix doesn't shows Nick's stuff without compensating Nick.

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

Put em in front of the tube....

Since placing your kids in front of the tube so you don't have to get bothered with them for a while is the new form of parenting, I do believe this.

Instructions:

1) Place kid in front of TV.
2) Start movie on demand from Netflix.
3) Kid is entertained, you can get stuff done.

On demand stuff WORKS for kids this way.

JigglyWiggly
join:2009-07-12
Pleasanton, CA

JigglyWiggly

Member

Re: Put em in front of the tube....

actually maybe it's cuz everything on nickelodean is garbage now?

FLATLINE
join:2007-02-27
Buffalo, NY

FLATLINE

Member

Just saying

Do we really need proof cable cutting exists? I feel like every time you guys post something like this here your trying to convince us its real? We all know it exists and we all know its going to get worse for the entertainment industry before it gets better. The cats been out of the bag so to speak and these posts are preaching to the choir because many of the cord cutters are right here. I'm probably wrong buts that's what it feels like.

Anyways I have learned a lot about this issue here and its important to understand that this isn't an easy fix. There's not going to be a smooth transition to the next step. We need to send a message though and it needs to get louder and it needs to happen quickly if we are going to get this resolved.

Cut the cord now. At the very least cut your package down. This isn't just about the cost either. Its about the quality of the content and the entertainment industries blatent flaunting of their riches brought by our hard earned much more limited funds. I believe actors and musicians are important to our way of life and they deserve to make a decent living. I have no problem with them building a big house and owning a Ferrari. I do have a problem with multiple mansions and warehouses full of cars. Are these people really that much more important than our soldiers, doctors, nurses, police etc...? I don't think so.

••••••••••
Tristan
join:2006-09-10
Nepean, ON

Tristan

Member

Netflix is good.

My son loves Netflix. He's seen just about every cartoon rerun on cable channels, because they loop them, and play them over and over. This is one of the key issues with cable and satellite TV. They bombard us with the same shows, the same movies, over and over and over until good shows become annoying shows.

He's old enough now to enjoy Power Rangers. He can watch the episodes he wants on Netflix. When he gets bored with that, he can watch something else. The thing is he gets to decide the show that graces our TV, not some dumb non-creative network station.

This is the future of television. Cable, Satellite, and the broadcasters should take heed, their days are numbered.

Eventually, we'll be streaming all shows direct from the source, or through distribution channels such as Netflix. This will bring us one step past a-la carte programming, without the help of cable/satellite.

I hate cable TV. With a PS3, or a computer connected to every TV, there's no worries about cutting the cord.

linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium Member
join:2002-12-03
United State

linicx

Premium Member

Re: Netflix is good.

The disparaging thing is when we had the big dish we could do the same thing. For $25 a month I was able to have my own lineup including 7 channels of HBO. The "in the wild" programming was awesome. I could watch Canadian programing, listen to music from the Caribbean or a live news feed from Germany. I wasn't paying for 1000 informercials or infinite loops. It was wonderful while it lasted.
KyL416
join:2005-12-28
Tobyhanna, PA

KyL416

Member

It's their programming department

Nickelodeon is horrible with scheduling and refuses to release any weekly schedules more than a week in advanced and for weekends no more than a day or two prior. While Disney Channel goes out of the way to tell you the specific day and time the next new episode will air, even if it's over a month away. How the heck are viewers supposed to tune in when they don't even know what's going to be on?

netflixrated
@rogers.com

netflixrated

Anon

netflix is for kids

The only reason I still have Netflix (canada) is for the children's content. It's pretty rare I'm on there for my own shows. Firefly didn't take long to watch
bluedyedvd
join:2007-04-15
Overland Park, KS

bluedyedvd

Member

improve the quality of the content

I don't mean to sound like a old man but when i watch nickeloden and disney with my niece I'm thinking what helll is this crap even kids have standards. When i was a kid in the 80s the shows were much better

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

1 recommendation

Corehhi

Member

Re: improve the quality of the content

said by bluedyedvd:

I don't mean to sound like a old man but when i watch nickeloden and disney with my niece I'm thinking what helll is this crap even kids have standards. When i was a kid in the 80s the shows were much better

I'm so old we only had 4 channels when I was a kid. Couldn't even get cable until I was in 10 th grade I think. Video rental stores weren't invented until I was in high school. After school all I remember was endless Gillian's Island, Brady Bunch and Tom and Jerry. Other options involved going out side and finding something to entertain myself with. Owned a shot gun, 22 and a large hunting knife by the time I was 14. Kids today are wussies.

Ike1
join:2012-06-02
Brooklyn, NY

Ike1 to bluedyedvd

Member

to bluedyedvd
said by bluedyedvd:

When i was a kid in the 80s the shows were much better

No they weren't. Have you WATCHED any of those 80s cartoons lately? They have not aged well. In fact, they're HORRIBLE. Try tuning into Qubo (an ION digital sub-channel, you can get it OTA in many areas) sometime. You'll see. Good God, just for one example, He-Man is much worse than I remember. I must have had pretty low standards as a kid. A current show like Legend of Korra is brilliant by comparison.
crgauth
join:2004-05-18
Glen Burnie, MD

crgauth

Member

Where does content come from if Everyone cuts the cord

Lots of people are saying cut the cord and go to NetFlix/Hulu Plus/YouTube, etc.
Most of what people are going for are shows that the cable channels carried new in the first place.
So if everyone cuts the cord, how do these channels get paid to continue to produce the new content?

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

Re: Where does content come from if Everyone cuts the cord

said by crgauth:

Lots of people are saying cut the cord and go to NetFlix/Hulu Plus/YouTube, etc.
Most of what people are going for are shows that the cable channels carried new in the first place.
So if everyone cuts the cord, how do these channels get paid to continue to produce the new content?

They will start charging per show/movie instead of a one-fee-flat-fee. If the market really shifted in such a way, they'll find a way to make money off of it.

The reality is that it won't happen. Everyone cutting the cord that is, they may still find a way to charge per show.

buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Dover, NH

buzz_4_20 to crgauth

Member

to crgauth
Then then networks just may have to adapt to what the consumer wants. That'd be a shame wouldn't it.

Adapt or die. Except in this country where it's adapt, get bailout or sue people that are making you adapt.

barkattv
@comcastbusiness.net

barkattv

Anon

Can you say Smarter Parent Choice?

My commend on this topic is that Nickelodeon has increased their commercials more and more and more. The goal for my child is to entertain and provide the best programming. Not bombard them with commercials. We switched away from the Nicks and Disney programming to dvd as there are no commercials and we can set a shorter time limit allowed for our kids to be stuck in front of the tube.

Hence I think Nick is picking on the wrong dog.
page: 1 · 2 · next