I Stream, You Stream

We all scream for streaming.

Sorry ice cream companies, I had to paraphrase your old slogan to emphasize the growing streaming phenomenon. As Andy Marken points out, in several posts, streaming media has taken over from broadcast and cable as the growth point for video/film distribution to the masses.

We have several “connected media” resources in our media room (nee: family room) such as a couple of Blu-ray players and a Roku, and each spare bedroom has a 32-inch TV and Roku player. Oh, there is a satellite dish outside, but it hasn’t been active in six months; the cable wiring in the house dates back to its building in 1989 but it, too, isn’t active. We do subscribe to a cable company, Cox, but only for its high-speed internet connection and VOIP telephone service for the office line.

As streaming services add “live” broadcasting news capabilities, such as those on the multiple Roku channels, there is less and less incentive to maintain a package cable or dish service. Those of us glued to the computer screen all day can pick up enough politics to last a lifetime in an hour. Why spend more time redoing the misery on the big screen. With sound, no less. (Yes, I work without speakers on the office computer; a headset is nearby if sound is needed.)

When looking at the cost/benefit analysis for our satellite service, our most recent connection to traditional TV, we noticed that we were paying $75/month on average for 200-plus channel access but rarely turning on the set. Our foreign students (we have hosted exchange students for 20 years) got their home country TV fix online, the Roku set in their room provided movies and shows “from home,” and the occasional sports event—soccer, usually—was never far away from live when using streaming services.

Yes, But – Sure, your personalized viewing bundle may be the same as your old cable viewing bundle but what the heck, it’s yours and you picked what you wanted not what they wanted to offer you … cool!

Our actual last use of the satellite system, by my wife and I, ended up being for the 2016 presidential primary and election debates. But the monthly charges continued. Andy does a good job of comparing the costs of cable and streaming in his piece “Personalization.” Using the idea that you can subscribe to services—Amazon Prime, Hulu, Netflix, etc.—that provide what you want to see instead of a monolithic cable package filled with what you don’t want to see, the cost may be the same in dollars but the advantages are much greater.

We subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime with MHz Choice, BritBox, Acorn, and Masterpiece subchannels on Amazon. The total streaming “package” runs about $68/month plus the internet connection which we would have regardless. So, it’s a financial wash with our former DirecTV satellite. But while we watched the satellite programming once a year, maybe, we pick out a TV show or movie on one of the streaming services almost every night.

In fact, coupled with the DVD/Blu-ray selections available through Netflix—and because of my SAG-AFTRA membership, in awards selections—we have more choices readily available without paying for the unwanted channels in a cable/satellite package. No “appointment TV” can compare with the “What and when I want it” streaming choices. And broadcast companies and studios are acknowledging that with their increasing online and on-stream selections.

Years ago, before a welcome home party, I hooked up an ancient (3 years old?) computer to the TV to show my wife’s travel slides. That same connection can be used to “stream” online content such as CNN and other news operations, YouTube videos, or other sources of interest. A 50-inch monitor! Binge watching cute cat videos! Reading the news without my glasses!

 To Go or Not to Go, That is the Question: NAB

Sorry, Shakespeare, for stealing and modifying your line but I needed a lead-in. NAB, perhaps the biggest, if not most important, show for those in the motion picture and video production industry is in April and Las Vegas. Both factors can be important if you are planning to attend.

Las Vegas is both the most affordable conference location—plenty of hotel rooms and many going for a very reasonable rate (as opposed to almost anything in New York City, for example)—and one of the most expensive. All those lights! All that nightlife! All those opportunities to do things—not all of which stay in Las Vegas when you leave.

And April is, for many, the start of the Fall production season (video/television) and outdoor shoots. Unless you are doing winter locations, April can be the start of your season in most parts of the country.

So, do you take the time, and spend the money, to attend NAB? Or are you one of those who depends on the media—like Markee—to report on the news from the show, who is doing what (to whom?) and why it matters to what you are doing? Digital sites, vendor and media, are loading up on product announcements, exciting videos, tips and tricks, in prep for NAB. If history holds, there will be tons of bytes devoted to videos of presentations, panels and speeches, all available on YouTube or similar sites. We are, in many ways, living in a virtual world, and those who help create it are taking advantage of it to save money on travel.

But is it really saving? Does seeing the latest camera in a video of someone else using it the same as holding it in your hands at the show booth? Does reading spec sheets satisfy your interests as much as asking questions of a company rep? Is the show experience worth more than the money outlay?

In the long-ago days when I was “in the biz,” I was based in Chicago. So was the NAB Show on occasion, alternating between Windy and Windier (Washington, DC, home to the political class) cities. So, going to the show was an afternoon off, something that could be scheduled if the crews were in town and not on location. Grab your coat, hop a bus, attend the show, ogle the…gear, equipment, that stuff. NAB Chicago in the 1960s wasn’t NAB Vegas in the 2000s, that’s for sure.

And going was about the only way to find out what was exhibited. The media would be out, in print, a week to a month after the show. Coverage was often limited to a focus of the magazine, often sponsored, and often skimpy. The local TV stations would run a couple of “look who’s in town” news items, perhaps a hyping of their own recent upgrades and new equipment, and that was it. You went or you wondered.

I’ve attended, I think, eight or nine NAB shows over the years. My last one was 2014, a millennium ago in terms of advancements in digital technology for production. Now that the show is in Las Vegas, a four-hour drive or one-hour flight (after three hours in the San Diego airport TSA line) away, I’ve lost the excuse of travel to the show being too expensive. Having lived in the town, I know some nice, slightly off-the-strip, places to stay cheap, so that’s covered. I’ve got a new pair of sunglasses, for day and night use (remember all those lights!), and the truck has new signs advertising Markee. I feel like Elwood Blues, ready for The Mission.

Everyone there will be walking around with either (or all) a tablet, a cell phone or laptop quite capable of bringing up and reading all the digital editions of magazines that used to display at the show. Including Markee, which printed its last paper edition in 2015. Ah, nostalgia.

So the question remains, do you go to the show or depend on Websites and publications to bring the news to you? What are the criteria you use to decide that question?

Send your comments to me: tom@markeemagazine.com