#cause only subbed is on this streaming service you have to pay a year subscription for and seems sketchy

[paullovescomics]

I'm partial to the "return to physical media" sentiment, partly because the problems with streaming and digital-only have become glaring, and also out of general cantankerousness. A few recent pieces have pointed out how unsustainable streaming appears to be, and the real problems it has caused for people who work in the entertainment industry (talking here about production crews, writers, and the 90-odd percent of actors who aren't top-billers). One of the arguments in this discussion that goes "now streaming costs as much as cable used to". It's very easy to just subscribe to one or two, watch what you want to watch, then cancel the subscription and try a different one. There may be a small number of people who feel compelled to buy lots of streaming services so they can keep up with everything, but presumably they would also feel the same about all the extra cable channels, so they'd be paying for the highest level cable tier and HBO, Cinemax, and so on.

But I went to my local cable monopoly's website to see what it costs now. Maybe they've cut prices since so many folks have cut the cord. Nope. The lowest-priced tier was $65. Even if you only bought the higher-priced streaming services, you could get four easy and have some change left over, and each one of those would have literally thousands of hours of stuff to watch. Plus, with cable you either have to watch it on their schedule, or pay for a DVR (or I guess it's a digital equivalent now) and hope that it actually catches the shows it's supposed to. And of course it's going to come with a lot of channels I'd never watch, and chances are good all of them include F-- News, which I do not want to support in any way.

So I think I'll stick with streaming for the foreseeable future. Between YouTube, Twitch, and Tubi, there's more than enough "free with ads" streaming. And I'm cool with only subbing to Paramount when there's new Lower Decks or Strange New Worlds, or Disney when there's a new Star Wars show (though I admit i'm mad about Acolyte not getting renewed, so I might be less eager to go back to that one). If AEW goes to HBO Max, even if it streams a week after the cable broadcast, I'll jump on that.

Not to mention that I don't have a real tv these days. After my last one died (only lasted a couple of years), I just stuck with my lap top. I really don't like modern TVs. The sound is awful, they look boring, and you can't do shit without the remote. Also, and I know I'm in the minority here, and my age is a big factor here since i grew up with TV looking a certain way, but the super HD picture looks fake to me. Watching a show where everything is perfectly lit, hardly even any shadows anywhere, everyone's make-up immaculate, sets where everything is perfectly in its place and there's not a mote of dust on anything makes it all feel very artificial. And I'm not the type to demand immersiveness (often when people talk about being immersed, or especially ads that promote a thing as immersive, I'm not sure I even know what they're talking about). I'm very aware that people on the screen are playing make believe and Im' being told a story by other people. That's a good thing, because I appreciate the storytelling skills of all these people, and the whole reason I seek out stories is to be told a good story. But these ultra high def things just look so fake. The fact that I've worn glasses since elementary school might play into it, too. There are few moments when the world I see doesn't have some fuzziness in it, at least at the edges.

[stardustfoundations]

Finally got my hands on a subbed version of Jai Lava Kusa and NTR acted his heart out in this movie. Three roles all with different mannerisms and ways of speaking. Multiple scenes where it's just his characters and I'm sitting here crying. I want 100s of stories and fix-its about these three brothers

[shanie-the-toyaddict]

can i ask what stream ripping software you use? i ask cause im new to this and with everything that is happening in media now, i think it would be good to know how

@demigoat because they asked too.

So the program is called Audials One and yes, it's a pay program. It's not impossibly expensive and, if you can get it during a sale, the price is really good. I got my year's access last December for 20 bucks. You can one-time-purchase the version for that year but, since they come out with new versions every year and a one-year subscription is usually less than the single purchase, I've found the sub works just fine.

I could shill about the product all day it's seriously that useful but I'll just say that, if you pay for it and have access to the almost daily updates (necessary for continued functionality), I've never met a stream this thing can't rip. If you literally have to have it set up to record your monitor while it's playing it can go that basic but usually it can just rip the data internally as you play it.

Or, in some cases like YT, you just load the video and click a button.

The service also has warning labels for various settings. It gives you the options of "safe" ripping settings which don't leave any fingerprints or if you are the risky sort, you can use the "red" settings which, while they usually work faster, have a good chance of getting you TOSsed. They leave that choice up to you but they will give you a warning if you're about to do something risky.

It should be noted that stream ripping, as opposed to torrents and actual one-click downloading, is protected by a court judgment from i believe the 1980s regarding recording songs off the radio. The only issue is that every single streaming service has written it into the TOS that you can't so that's where the hangup is. (I believe. My minor in popular culture came from over a decade ago the laws could have changed since then.)

Anyway, I cannot recommend buying the program enough it has served me so well in the past 3 years since I found it. HERE is the link to the product page, although I will warn you the main homepage has this big giant eye in the background that can be kind of creepy. Also flashing lights. (The page linked does not as of the time of posting, 8/24/22) So yeah. Anyone who wants an awesome ripping program, go for it. As stated, it's done me well so far, hopefully, it can help out some of you as well.

Of note: I'm in the US and this is a US-based program, I believe. I can't vouch for international usage because I've never used it internationally. Anyone who has info about that feel free to add it.

[sindri42]

Hey I've seen you support crunchyroll in the past so what's your thoughts on this whole merger with funimation?

Short answer? Worried.

Many years ago, I tried to actually pay for a subscription to funimation's streaming service. I signed up, gave them a significant amount of real money, and then discovered that their website was so fucking broken I could not get it to play a single full episode of anything. So I cancelled that, and felt perfectly justified in just pirating anything they had exclusive rights to in my region.

But since then, I keep hearing more about the company, and all of it is worse. Rewriting the scripts of shows to insert their own political messages while removing the words of the original writers, often going so far as to completely change the story in blatantly homophobic ways? Buying exclusive licensing deals to new releases, only to decide that the content of the shows is too controversial and refusing to actually let anybody see it? Abusing employees, firing people without cause, and then openly lying about it? No matter what aspect of the company you look at, everything they do is terrible.

[I mean CR has done some really stupid stuff over time, but overall they deliver what they promise and don't fuck things up too badly. I'd go so far as to say they're the best out of our current set of options, and a vast improvement over anything that came before them.]

And then a few years back I remember Crunchy and Funi announcing this big partnership thing, where instead of fighting over licencing deals they would share libraries, with CR streaming the subs that their customers mostly wanted and Funi handling the dubs that their customers wanted and both of them getting a vastly expanded catalog... until a couple months later when Funi pulled out of the deal with no explanation, taking everything they had a license to with and cutting off viewers mid-stream. The only thing I can think of is that they discovered that if there was any other legal source for the shows they "owned" then everybody would jump over to the alternative and never use their vastly inferior service again? And so instead of trying to attract customers back by improving their service, they said 'fuck you' to all the customers and went back to trying to hold a monopoly on japanese media in the west?

And now we hear about this "merger". And maybe there's nothing for the customers to worry about, maybe the part of the service we see will be unchanged and the only people who really get hurt by this will be the Japanese artists and producers who used to get to pick the best of competing bids for international release, but now have to accept whatever scraps Funi deigns to throw them. But we all know that when a huge, powerful, stupid company like Funi "merges" with a small, passionate group like CR, they really become the new owners. And all the press releases giving you a bunch of corpspeak about how dedicated they are to providing the best service, but never actually saying anything meaningful? Definitely not doing anything to allay my concerns.

I mean, piracy will still always work, but that leaves me with no way to actually pay the people making the anime for any of it, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[burnouts3s3]

Yu Yu Hakusho, a review

(Disclaimer: The following is a non-profit unprofessional blog post written by an unprofessional blog poster. All purported facts and statement are little more than the subjective, biased opinion of said blog poster. In other words, don’t take anything I say too seriously.) Just the facts 'Cause you're in a Hurry! Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price for Season (MSRP):  80 dollars for the entire series on Digital. 80 Dollars for the entire series on DVD. Animation Studio: Pierrot Licensed and Localized by: Funimation Entertainment Audio: Both English and Japanese Audio available Price per episode: 2 USD per Episode when bought digitally. 1.40 When bought in a season. (20 Dollars when bought per season vs 56 Dollars when bought individually). Length per Episode: 25 Minutes on average. 21 Without Intro and Ending song. Number of Discs: 4 DVD Discs per season. 16 DVD Discs in total. Episodes per Disc: 6 or 7. Bonus Features: Trailers for other Funimation licensed shows. Also on: Blu-ray, Hulu, Crunchyroll and Funimation Now, paid subscription services that allows dual language streaming of select shows. How much I paid: 160 Dollars/USD. (80 for the DVDs. 80 for the digital licenses for the show). Number of Episodes: 112 Episodes My Personal Biases: Gather round, old Toonami Faithful. Back in the 2000’s, I followed Hakusho closely when it was released on Toonami and Adult Swim. So, you can imagine, I’m heavily biased in favor of this series. My Verdict: Yu Yu Hakusho represents the last of an era. Not only is it a classic from the 90’s, but it’s a lean, matter of fact Shounen Anime that probably has the least amount of filler during a time Dragon Ball Z spent endless days on the Namek Saga. Still beautifully rendered, great score, fast paced action and one of the few Funimation dubs that manages to be more interesting than the sub script and you have one of the last few anime out there worth seeing. Buy it! KEEP IN MIND: Anime series and Western Television have very different formats when selling shows. While Western TV Seasons have one story arc that ends and begins within the season, Dubbed Anime is usually released in multiple volumes and releases. For example, While Yu Yu Hakusho each as 28 Episodes per season, Story Arcs, such as the infamous Dark Tournament Saga, beginning and ending points not found in an individual season. Author’s Note: The following review will be a review of the dubbed version of the show localized by Funimation Entertainment. While the majority of the scenes remain unchanged, the Funimation translated script contains additional dialogue, observations and jokes not found in the original version. Please keep that in mind. WARNING: SPOILERS Yu Yu Hakusho, a review

"And so it all begins. This boy's name is Yusuke. He's fourteen years old, and is supposed to be the hero of this story. But oddly enough... he's dead."

Yusuke Urameshi is a delinquent more likely to get into fistfights with classmates than attend class. Scolded by everyone, from his alcoholic mother to childhood friend, Keiko, to his principal, Yusuke ditches school. But when a young boy is about to be hit by a car, Yusuke literally dies protecting the child. As a ghost with the help of a surprisingly cheerful Botan, the Grim Reaper, Yusuke learns that there was something of this life worth living. When Yusuke returns to life, he becomes a Spirt Detective, assigned from Spirit World to hunt down Rogue Demons. With the help of his classmate, Kazuma Kuwabara, and two enemies turned teammates, the Fox Demon reborn Kurama and the mischievous Hiei, Yusuke faces a whole slew of opponents he’d never thought he’d face. Has it really been 25 years since Yu Yu Hakusho first debuted in Japan? It’s hard to imagine Yu Yu Hakusho being made the way it was. This 112 Shounen Anime series managed to end on a complete note. Think about other shows in the genre. Shows like DBZ, Naruto, Bleach and One Piece manage to have over 200 episodes each and filled with filler and theatrical released movies. Other Shounen shows like this, like Soul Eater, manage to end on 26 episodes or around 50. But then there’s Yu Yu Hakusho, a show that had over 100 episodes with little to no filler but never achieved the merchandising empires Dragonball and Naruto had. Even Bleach, a series that had popularity drain out by the end of its run, was able to span more episodes and had more theatrical releases. One of the key successes was limiting the cast to a group of familiar but complex faces. The Team of Yusuke, Kuwabara, Hiei and Kurama were all memorable, but the interaction within the group was so great that it could span a couple of episodes. Each had a different morality and perspective. The Main character was a smart-ass with a potty mouth with a deep sense of morality, Kuwabara seemed to have a strong sense of honor and persistence, Kurama had a collected calm of a general while Hiei was always getting into trouble for his own reasons. Not only did the four manage to make each scenario interesting but the interaction with one another is something to be written about for the ages. One of the things I found surprising was how beautiful the animation manages to hold up. Granted, it still uses 90’s tricks such as speed lines and fade outs, but each fight seemed not only well choreographed but colored and detailed in a way that made me come back to watch more. Add to that, Togashi’s emphasis to make fights more strategic and detailed, and I found myself rewatching old fights again and again. Looking back, the fights always thrilled me but as I grew older, I appreciated Kurama’s fights more. That’s not to say Yusuke’s, Hiei’s or even Kuwabara’s fights were bad, but they generally devolved into “who’s stronger” fistfights with fireballs. Kurama’s usually revolved around a sense of strategy and out smarting his opponent with plant based wapons. The series got a number of dubs but the most famous one by far is the English version by Funimation Entertainment. I know Funimation gets a lot of flak for its translation issues, but Yu Yu Hakusho manages to use localization to its benefit, in that they make Yusuke, the loud mouthed delinquent that had little cares for the world, extremely likable and funny. Fans will recognize veteran voice actors such as Chuck Huber (who voiced 17 in Dragonball Z) as Hiei, John Burgmeier (Who voiced Tien) as Kurama and Chris Sabat (Who voiced Vegeta, Yamcha and Piccolo) as Kuwabara. Each shows a surprising amount of range as each character (especially Sabat) and manages to rival their Japanese counterparts. But Justin Cook steals the show as Yusuke Urameshi. That’s not to say Nozomu Sasaki, Yusuke’s Japanese Voice Performer, does a bad job, but Justin Cook manages to bring Yusuke to life thanks to some adlibbing and great comedic timing. (While Cook voiced Yusuke, he also acted as the Line Director at Funimation).

The Funimation Script took liberties from the original source material and added additional lines not found in the original version. But, I feel this is one of the times where it benefits the scripts as well as the personalities. Yusuke’s additional dialogue not only manages to be funny but also solidifies the fact that if Yusuke were a real person, he’d be a pain in the ass to deal with. The soundtrack is a masterpiece. Another Yusuke, Yusuke Honma, composed the soundtrack. It not only managed to be dramatic, but comedic, emotional and powerful at the same time. Struggle of Sadness manages to be one of my all time favorites to listen to.

The clear fan favorite out of all the story arcs is the Dark Tournament. When Yusuke is forced to compete in a life or death tournament involving some of the strongest demons out there, he’ll have to gather up his teammates and duke it out with some of the series most memorable opponents. It not only manages to be a good tournament arc, but also a great training arc and a lesson in mortality vs immortality. If nothing else, get the Dark Tournament saga. Verdict: Do you like Shounen Anime? Do you like owning a series and paying far less than for other long running series? Are you a fan of 90’s anime? IF you’ve answered yes, Yu Yu Hakusho is definitely a show to check out. Don’t let this one miss you! Full Price!

[victoriabarretolasalle]

Victoria Barreto’s Blog: Marketing Insights

Printed Book Sales Rising Again in the US

Are printed copies of books really making a comeback? 

Yes, in the US good-old fashioned book sales have been steadily rising and are currently in growth in the product life cycle. As the infographic shows, this recovery picked up extra pace during the pandemic, too. According to Publishers Weekly, the 2021 increase was led by fiction titles. "The young adult fiction segment had the largest increase, with unit sales jumping 30.7%, while adult fiction sales rose 25.5%. Sales in the juvenile fiction category increased 9.6%". 

However, there was one segment recorded to have a decline in unit sales  which was juvenile young-fiction. This fall was believed to occur after the introduction of COVID in 2021which led many parents to purchase educational books for their children in hopes of still educating them despite being on lockdown. On the opposite side of that since the reopening of establishments and public places there has been a big increase in the small travel sub category of books with sales at an increase of 23%. 

The introduction of printed books becoming more poplar at this time is beneficial not only to the book selling markets but also to its consumers. Considering that many jobs require you to stare at a computer screen all day, it’s wise to give your eyes a break whenever you can. One survey of 429 university students revealed that nearly half had complained of strained eyes after reading digitally. Electronic books can cause screen fatigue, which may lead to blurred vision, redness, dryness, and irritation. With print books, you don’t have to worry about any of that. We can see in the graph above that before the craze of technology printed books were at a high demand then as the new technology started to emerge and become such an integrated part of peoples every day lives it began to drop, but now with people becoming more self aware and realizing the damage of always being on a screen and missing those personal interactions the sale and demand for paper books has began to rise again. 

https://www.statista.com/chart/27285/printed-book-unit-sales-timeline-united-states/?utm_campaign=ad0c2c3f11-All_InfographTicker_daily_COM_AM_KW16_2022_Fr&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Statista%20Newsletters&utm_term=0_662f7ed75e-ad0c2c3f11-314931969

  Netflix is finally open to ads. What’s next?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaW56VElNXM

 Why is Netflix open to introducing ads to their known to be “ad free” service? 

Netflix started out as one of the most popular streaming services that was subscription based and contained content free of ad interruptions, however, now with Netflix losing subscribers and facing stiff revenue and the dropping of its stock by nearly 30%, Netflix is looking at how to introduce advertisements to its platform. 

While it is the dominant streaming platform, with 158 million global subscribers, Netflix also has a $12 billion pile of debt. And it is facing competition from deep-pocketed streaming newcomers like the Walt Disney Company and Apple. If Netflix is to remain a top player in this industry it may have to change with the times. 

After years of growth and domination in the streaming industry Netflix is currently facing a lot of problems that they think advertising may help it solve. Netflix is facing a lot of competition as well as a problems with the sharing of accounts through house holds which Netflix estimates to be around 100 million. In order for  Netflix to stay a strong competitor and maintain its advantage in this industry it is going to have to introduce advertisements in its available content to users. According to a survey conducted most viewers in the U.S. prefer to see ads if they can pay less for the service. In addition to that I do not think Netflix’s main and only problem is their ad-free service or the sharing of accounts but also their lack of good new original content. I think if Netflix can create and add more demanded and wanted content to their platform they would see significant growth again, consumers have been unimpressed by their recent releases and the content available to view on Netflix so I think in order to gain viewers back and drive up their subscribers as well as market share Netflix needs to work on its marketing reach of new content and the demand of content that their consumers want from them. 

Not only could the introduction of ads and new content to Netflix's’ platform help them substantially as far as their stocks and revenue are concerned but this could also open the door to new opportunities for them such as help their marketers tap into a new supply of inventory for the company which would offer a greater diversity and scale. With the help of advertisements and the help of these possible new opportunities Netflix would have a chance at increasing its market margins, and current average revenue per user above $14.78, making shareholders happy, and advertisers thrilled with the opportunity to engage with consumers watching great content. 

https://www.marketingdive.com/news/netflix-open-to-ads-whats-next/622375/

Streaming Drives Global Music Industry Resurgence

 Why has the music industry grown so much over the past years? 

Music has been an integrated part of peoples lives for generations and with the introduction of new technology it has continued to become an even bigger part of peoples everyday lives. CD’s started the popularity of music but with the advancement of technology we are now able to stream and share music and the touch of a button. The advancements in the iPhone, tablets and home devices make it easier to access music than ever before, which is why we have seen a substantial growth in the music streaming industry in these recent years. 

The year 2021 was another good year for the music industry the worldwide recorded music revenues totaled $25.9 billion last year, up 18.5 percent from the previous year’s total of $21.9 billion. Marking the seventh consecutive year of growth for the global music industry after nearly two decades of gradual decline.

Streaming music is very popular among consumers at the moment and is forecasted to only continue to grow in recent years to come. However one of the biggest things These top music streaming platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music need to watch out for is competition there is a lot of competition  in this industry among existing and emerging brands. One of the way these top competitors  can stay on top of the competition is by continuously providing their consumers with that they need and well as listening to their new and growing needs as well as to constantly stay on top of the competition by watching out for new products services they might try to offer in hopes of stealing the consumers away. 

[mattsammonsez]

ESPN’s Layoffs Were Surprising. Why They Happened Shouldn’t Be.

A perfect storm of internal and external forces culminate in the firing of numerous on-air personalities.

The news wasn’t exactly shocking, in fact it was well known that some big cuts were coming to ESPN any day now. After more than 300 cuts to behind-the-scenes staff in 2015, approximately 100 cuts affecting mostly air talent, reporters, and website writers shook the sports world today. It wasn’t how many that were cut that shook the sports world, but who.

You know by now who got fired, and whose roles are reportedly being cut back. ESPN’s NHL staff was gutted, Baseball Tonight eviscerated, and notable names covering the NFL and college sports were let go. So how did the “Worldwide Leader in Sports” get here, and where do they go next? Some people think (correctly) that cord-cutting was a factor. Some people think (correctly) that ESPN’s “embrace the debate” stance ran off some viewers. Some people think the network’s “left-leaning” political opinions caused thousands of viewers to flee. People who think that last point is true, are in my opinion, smoking crack.

The fact is there is no one reason why this happened, it was a perfect storm of internal and external factors that collided at once and forever shifts ESPN’s direction moving forward. But that’s why ESPN did what it did-- it had to move forward. The most notable name in sports television is having a midlife identity crisis.

The SportsCenter studio in much more sublime times in 1979, with current Outside the Lines host Bob Ley on the right.

Before I offer up my two cents, I have to say that the firings today have absolutely nothing to do with the actual people who were fired. This was, as cold as it sounds, a business decision. I hate business decisions like this. I’ve been on both sides of cold “business decisions”-- a casualty and a survivor. In September 2006, despite seven years of fierce loyalty to the stations I worked for and the company brand and ideals, Clear Channel Radio (now iHeartMedia) decided my $25,000 salary was just killing the stock price. Somebody at the station had to go, and it was me. I was lucky, not only because two weeks before that happened I had just started working for the Tampa Bay Lightning, but being freed from the station made me work even harder at my new job. It opened doors that I never would have imagined opening, and they still do to this day.

On the other side of the coin, I was a survivor in April 2009 during two days of relentless blood-letting at the Lightning. This was during the darkest days of the OK Hockey group owning the team, GM Brian Lawton and his wife pretending to own it, and your average American having more loose change in the sofa cushions than the team had in its coffers. Dozens of people were let go by the goons running the team in to the ground, including several good friends of mine. I actually cleaned out my office in case I got the axe, just to save some time. I obviously didn’t lose my job, but the work place wasn’t the same until Jeff Vinik thankfully bought the club out from under these yahoos 11 months later.

So my message to all who lost their jobs today is that this isn’t the end. As strange as it sounds, this may very well be the beginning of something very good and certainly new. That’s not to say the change will be easy, or quick, or even better-paying, but as I’ll discuss there are many things ESPN and the cable TV business still have to figure out over the next several years. It may actually be better not to be part of that environment.

My message to young people who see news like this and don’t want to get in to the broadcast journalism business: don’t change your course. If you love writing, filming, editing, mixing, reporting, anchoring, and doing it for a low wage because you just love doing it-- you’re in the right place. The technology changes, the audience changes, the way we do things changes, but we always need someone to do the heavy lifting. Simply retweeting or lifting others’ work will get you web hits, but it won’t get you far. Don’t ever let days like this darken your dreams. If this is what you want to do, do it. On the other hand, if you want stronger job security and higher pay, study to be an accountant. But if you go that way, don’t expect to be in the locker room as the champagne is spraying everywhere.

So back to ESPN, and in a sense cable sports as a whole. How did it get here?

ESPN is paying a gazillion dollars in rights fees

Notice I didn’t put cord-cutting as the first topic. It’s a big one, but the white elephant in the room is the billions of dollars that go out the door just to have the biggest leagues on your channel. Live sports play-by-play, especially from any of the major sports leagues, is the only guaranteed ratings generator. Networks know this, and so do leagues, which is why the price tags on some of the latest rights deals are astronomical.

ESPN is paying in 2017 alone, approximately $7.3 BILLION in rights fees for Monday Night Football, the NBA, the NCAA football playoffs, separate deals for FIVE different college conferences, and Major League Baseball. While subscriber fees (the highest in cable television) right now pay for those rights fees, the cost of doing these broadcasts makes the investment nearly a zero-sum situation. Factor in air talent, camera operators, directors, producers, engineers, satellite trucks and satellite time all in HD, and it’s no wonder ESPN recently started scaling back on on-site announcers for many of its “second tier” events. This is also why any league not named NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, EPL, NASCAR, PGA, or NCAA is frantically trying to take control of their broadcasts, many turning to over-the-top (OTT) websites and mobile apps. The network money just isn’t going to be there in the future at the going rate of rights fees.

And when a network’s only guaranteed audience generator is practically zero-sum, corporate (and the associated stockholders) is not going to be happy.

Okay, let’s get to cord-cutting

Even I’m wondering why I’m paying nearly $200 a month for 2,000 channels when I watch only 10 of them. When I first pondered this a couple of years ago, my answer was there wasn’t much cost difference in cutting the cord and going with a streaming service and rabbit ears. That’s changing though, as the technology is becoming more dependable and efficient. Those who have already cut the cord are early adapters, and I’m betting a large part of the under 40 generation will be doing so in the next 3-5 years. The writing is on the wall for the cable industry, and I bet your cable provider doesn’t even have the word “cable” in the company’s name. Cable companies are very quickly becoming ISP companies, and with many cable providers’ sub-par and over-priced service as a cable provider, an ISP provider is all they will ever be. This presents a major hurdle for ESPN, and many cable networks.

When ESPN loses 500,000 subscribers in one month, and that’s a kind number compared to some of the actual losses reported in recent months, the network is losing more than $3.6 million in subscriber fees. That’s just one month. Multiply it by 12, and you can see a lot of red ink coming from the cord cutters. The problem for ESPN is this isn’t a recent trend. In fact, it’s been going on for six years.

This one graphic from Cork Gaines of Business Insider, brilliantly illustrates what’s going on in cable sports and ESPN. Since July 2011, ESPN’s peak subscriber population, cable TV has lost 16% of its subscribers. ESPN is the loss leader at 12% during this time period. What should be jarring for ESPN, is the downward lines for them and the cable industry as a whole are not parallel. In fact, they appeared to slowly converge between July 2013 and July 2015. Unfortunately for ESPN, that’s the same time they sunk in an estimated $125 million to build a state-of-the-art studio for its flagship program SportsCenter. Since July 2015, the network has lost nearly 7 million subscribers at a rights fee cost of nearly $50 million.

Another alarming figure for ESPN, based on this graph, is who the growth leaders are in this time window: the NFL’s and MLB’s TV networks. Combined, these two leagues are receiving $2.6 BILLION in 2017 ALONE from ESPN’s rights fees. Nearly 1/3 of what ESPN is paying out for the right to air live games is going to two leagues that also air live games. They are also available on mobile devices and laptops via a subscription, which can be priced reasonably since those pesky subscriber fees aren’t part of that math. So two of ESPN’s prime clients are taking care of their own business on their platforms, and two other growth networks (FS1 and NBC Sports) are home to an alternative form of ESPN content and the NHL, respectively. If you don’t like the debate on ESPN, flip to FS1. If you despise ESPN’s nose-in-the-air attitude towards hockey, you know where to find the games. Which leads in to the next point...

With non-game programming, ESPN dropped the ball

Like Jose Canseco in this 1993 “highlight”, ESPN took its eye off the ball when it came to non-game programming. Major League Baseball, and its online platform BAMTech, outdid ESPN when it came to mobile apps.

When discussing the stages of grief, anger follows shock. After the initial shock of the news wore off, the pitchforks and torches were heading towards Bristol for keeping Stephen A. Smith employed, and for once preparing to back up the Brinks truck for Skip Bayless who took a more lucrative deal at FS1. As much as I don’t like either carnival barker (as writer Jeff Pearlman so accurately put it), Smith and Bayless are not directly responsible for what happened. The cord cutting started six years ago, and many of the rights deals were signed in that time period, but the changing landscape of sports talk started many many years ago.

Not just in TV, but as I saw first hand in radio, the narrative shifted from smart analysis of sports to lifestyle discussion. The sports talk radio scene became “guy talk” as radio station websites prominently featured the “hot chick of the day” photo as hosts talked more about what they were doing that upcoming weekend than what happened in last night’s game. Ratings went up, as the “every man” and not just the sports fan would tune in. Overall time spent listening (TSL) was eroding, but just enough people were listening for 15 minutes at a time so the business leaders looked the other way. For ESPN, it was painfully obvious in the early 2000s the network was becoming more of a promotional vehicle for the parent Walt Disney Company than leading in actual sports. Viewership was up, subscriber fees poured in, and the party would never end!

But in both sports talk TV and radio, as the nation started politically getting unglued about 10 years ago, the point/counterpoint tactic of news talk took over sports. All of a sudden sports talk was less “what a game last night!” and more “where does this game rank in the history of sports?” talk. Everything had to be compartmentalized-- every player had a legacy defined, every team was either a dynasty in the making or the biggest choke act. After the lots were divided, sports fans and most notably the hosts had to take sides. Choose A or B, red pill or blue pill, right or wrong. Once you picked a side, you screamed incessantly over your choice and deconstructed not the other argument but the other person for being too stupid to know better. Everything was an argument, a poll question, and a top-10 list. Sports talk on TV and radio had the market on every piece of low-hanging fruit.

ESPN grabbed on to every dangling, browning fruit clinging to its brown leaves. Call it the curse of Jamie Horowitz if you wish, as Horowitz took the the same formula to FS1 two years ago, but ESPN went all in on the “embrace the debate” approach a long time before we all knew who Horowitz was. ESPN still had the more high-brow stuff in the form of Outside the Lines and the 30 for 30 series, as well as some entertaining sport-specific shows. But with hours of debate programming it became clear years ago what the primary direction of the network was. Anybody looking for substance over style, found it elsewhere. And former heavyweights of the ESPN programming wheel like Baseball Tonight, NFL Prime Time, and Monday Night Countdown got little promotion compared to the screaming heads in the day time lineup. Over time NFL Network and MLB Network made smart decisions with programming and personnel hiring, provided edgier yet more insightful commentary, all the while outworking the league’s best-known rights holder.

ESPN still has a lot of issues

The cuts in 2015 and this spring are purely financial-- some red ink will stop bleeding in the short-term, and potentially in the long term as many of these roles are either unfilled or filled by younger and less expensive talent. But this is the tip of the iceberg for ESPN, as they have several more hurdles to jump over.

It’s not just “secondary” sports leagues looking for OTT help, as Disney lurched in to action several months ago to find the next generation of WatchESPN by heavily investing in BAMtech and striking deals with streaming services like Hulu. Of course, there will always be rumors that Disney will buy one of the larger streaming services to boost not just ESPN’s offerings but everything company wide. But with cable subscription losses not likely leveling off any time soon, ESPN has to find a robust platform to live on with mobile devices... a problem again exacerbated by strong mobile platforms from most major sports leagues. ESPN is not only behind in the game, they have to find something that moves eyeballs away from established apps with a huge following.

SportsCenter is also a work in progress, and the one piece of live studio programming that has a built-in audience. But showing highlights is no longer enough to sustain an audience that can find highlights on gifs just minutes after the highlight happens. ESPN has to cultivate a new SportsCenter audience with new ideas, and ideas that can live online as well as over the air. ESPN has done that with Scott Van Pelt’s late night SportsCenter, and the new “The 6″ at 6 p.m. The SportsCenter brand will be important to ESPN’s future, but designing each hour of SportsCenter to a certain host’s personality is the only way to freshen the show while also making it mobile friendly. Basically, SportsCenter won’t be just an endless loop of highlights and sound bites shown 10 or 12 times a day. It’s essentially going to become 10 or 12 individual shows with the SportsCenter brand backing it. It will be interesting to see if these variations of the traditional SportsCenter are as successful as SVP’s is. If that’s the case, ESPN has something bold to build around.

ESPN still has to figure out what the identities of its sister channels are. Exactly what is the purpose of ESPN 2 these days? When it launched in 1993, it was the spunky alternative channel with the hockey games and cool new version of SportsCenter. Today, I only think of it as the channel next to ESPN in my lineup. Have you seen any news on ESPN News? Is ESPN Classic actually showing classic games, or a game from last week that is now labelled a “classic” because it had an exciting finish? The networks of ESPN don’t feature unique directions, they are now just ESPN and a few channels that act as dumping grounds for what can’t get on ESPN. The main ESPN channel is the crown jewel and needs to be protected at all times, but ESPN has to find some identity and direction to the ancillary channels that feed the mother ship.

ESPN is not dead, long live ESPN

Keith Olbermann and Dan Patrick hosting SportsCenter during the program’s pinnacle days in the mid 1990s. While many sports fans long for the days of “The Big Show”, those days are not coming back.

This final point is the most important. Many people are waiting to throw dirt on ESPN. The fact is ESPN is not going anywhere, and will be the top dog in sports broadcasting for a long time. But it has to change, and that’s the sad but true story line to today’s news. ESPN has to get leaner, refocus on internet-friendly content, and provide better content than the competition. Over the past 10-15 years ESPN got too big, some will say too big for its britches, and when you have to get agile it’s hard to do it when you’re bloated. Unfortunately some very good people, including some I know personally, lost their jobs in the process. Again, through no fault of their own, they are the casualties in this corporate maneuvering. It’s part of the business of broadcast journalism, and it took 38 years for ESPN to make this giant adjustment.

But make no mistake, the childhood dreams of those wanting to get in to this field will still be set on ESPN.Those dreams will just look drastically different than the dreams I had 25 years ago, and drastically different than the viewers who grew up with Keith Olbermann & Dan Patrick breathlessly awaiting the Sunday night plays of the week segment. As those dreams are different, ESPN has to be as well.

If you’re old enough to remember the “glory days” of SportsCenter, you’re old enough to remember the video rental business. Around 1979, when ESPN started, many mom & pop video rental stores opened up to cash in on the VCR craze. Ten years later, Blockbuster Video was putting many of those mom & pops out of business. Ten years later, Netflix was mailing DVDs to you, as you ordered them from the comfort of your home. Ten years later, Blockbuster was out of business while Netflix was transitioning to streaming. Nearly ten years later, Netflix is not known for movie “rentals”, but streaming of all video including its own original programming. Ten years from now, there will be something better than Netflix, and something better than that new “something” ten years after that.

ESPN changed how we watched sports, how we talked about sports, how TV newscasters presented sports, and it drove a lot of the economics behind it. Hoping that ESPN returns to the “Keith & Dan” days is like hoping a Blockbuster Video store opens up down the street so you can get one of the 30 copies of a “new” film that was in theaters nine months ago. It’s not happening, much like MTV isn’t showing music videos (neither is VH1). The firings at ESPN just plain suck, because good people are looking for their next job, and it underscores the fact we already know broadcast journalism is a cutthroat business. But this was a long time coming, a terrible necessity in determining ESPN’s future, and an awful reminder that even a worldwide leader has to keep looking forward with one eye on the rearview mirror.

You can reach Matt Sammon via email at MattSammonSez@Gmail.com or on Twitter @SammonSez.

[brujis]

Now is the time for Walmart to strike at Amazon Prime

Amazon Prime has been an enormous influence on e-commerce, but this online juggernaut is beginning to show cracks. Now is the time for arch-rival Walmart to swoop in with a Prime-like offering that strikes at the weaknesses Amazon has introduced into its formidable loyalty program: price, a lack of focus, and competing subscription services.

Here’s the problem. Amazon has invested in its Prime program continuously, adding feature after feature in an obvious bid to make the service appear as valuable as possible. But while these additions are superfluous to many a user’s needs, everyone pays for them whether they’re used or not.

That’s part of the strategy, of course — if you know your customer won’t stop paying for a subscription, you can use that to squeeze the life out of other subscriptions they might pay for, and redirect that money to yourself. Prime Video and Music, for example, are clearly meant to take the place of Netflix or HBO and Spotify or Apple Music. Why pay for two? And if you have to choose, well, it’s easier to quit HBO than Prime.

This only goes so far, though. For years users have been subject to these pressures, watching the price of Prime rise all the while, and meanwhile other services are getting better and better. Streaming services and exclusive content have multiplied, and Prime users are frequently left out in the cold.

Photo storage? Isn’t that free everywhere? Twitch Prime? Is that really useful for millions of working families? Prime Originals? Not exactly raking in the Emmys. But still… it’s Prime. It’s necessary.

The only one who can realistically break this deadlock is Walmart. Not by providing the same thing as Amazon, but by providing something simpler and more focused, taking over the workhorse duties of Prime (shipping, sales, some basic media of opportunity) at a much lower price, granting the customer freedom to pursue their own choice in subscriptions while not meaningfully affecting their online retail experience.

What would this Walmart offering consist of? They already offer free shipping on a lot of items, free store pickup, and so on. You don’t need to use your imagination here. What would make this better? Free 2-day shipping on all items with no minimum amount; grocery and secure package delivery; a set of basic TV and music streams or even just a partnership with a couple existing products; and lastly some in-store benefits like members-only promotions and perhaps even early access on Black Friday. (Plus extra perks at sub-chains like Sam’s Club.)

Leveraging Walmart’s brick and mortar presence is important, but it’s hard to say what they have the leeway to try there, as it’s likely a delicate balance. But it’s a major advantage to have regular visitors to major retail locations, whereas Amazon has to either home-deliver or install lockers.

There are already indications this is happening — a pilot with a smart-lock company for home delivery, a rumored streaming service, cashierless(ish) checkout (even easier with an account), revamping of existing grocery delivery partnerships, emphasis on cloning or promoting existing services that match or exceed Amazon’s… it looks a lot like a shift to an end-to-end loyalty service.

Whoops: SoftBank CEO reveals Walmart has acquired Flipkart

There are rumors of a Microsoft-powered standalone smart device, but that might conflict with existing voice-ordering partnership with Google. Still, voice assistants are hot and Walmart needs an answer to Alexa if it wants to compete directly with Amazon in the living room. A possible acquisition of Shopify could conceivably broaden the company’s reach considerably as well.

How much would it cost? I’d say if they go about $50 per year they’re asking for trouble. It’s one of those magic numbers not just on its own, but in relation to Amazon’s $120 per year. $60 would be merely half price — $50, why that’s positively generous!

And the considerable savings opens up a bit of cash for secondary subscriptions like Netflix, which ends up, ironically, causing consumers to lock themselves into Walmart just as they were with Amazon, since once again they can’t switch easily! But they will almost certainly be getting more for their money.

Naturally $50 won’t pay for all that stuff on Walmart’s side — but building brand loyalty on the scale of years, while sucking a customer from a competitor… that’s worth spending a little cash for.

Timing-wise they’d want to announce this well ahead of the holidays — at least three months. First three months free if you sign up now and all that. It’ll be a big cash outlay but you don’t unseat a titan like Amazon on a shoestring budget. You do what it takes to put items in carts and go from there.

Walmart won’t risk its business on this, but it makes sense to do it now and do it with vigor. Walmart doesn’t get by on word of mouth — it needs a full court press ahead of Amazon’s busiest period, in which it can unequivocally say “This is the better option for you. Switch now and you’ll never look back.”

The real question is: what will they call it? MartLand? WalSmart? Or perhaps… Wal Street?

via TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2NyU9yV

[fmservers]

Now is the time for Walmart to strike at Amazon Prime

Amazon Prime has been an enormous influence on e-commerce, but this online juggernaut is beginning to show cracks. Now is the time for arch-rival Walmart to swoop in with a Prime-like offering that strikes at the weaknesses Amazon has introduced into its formidable loyalty program: price, a lack of focus, and competing subscription services.

Here’s the problem. Amazon has invested in its Prime program continuously, adding feature after feature in an obvious bid to make the service appear as valuable as possible. But while these additions are superfluous to many a user’s needs, everyone pays for them whether they’re used or not.

That’s part of the strategy, of course — if you know your customer won’t stop paying for a subscription, you can use that to squeeze the life out of other subscriptions they might pay for, and redirect that money to yourself. Prime Video and Music, for example, are clearly meant to take the place of Netflix or HBO and Spotify or Apple Music. Why pay for two? And if you have to choose, well, it’s easier to quit HBO than Prime.

This only goes so far, though. For years users have been subject to these pressures, watching the price of Prime rise all the while, and meanwhile other services are getting better and better. Streaming services and exclusive content have multiplied, and Prime users are frequently left out in the cold.

Photo storage? Isn’t that free everywhere? Twitch Prime? Is that really useful for millions of working families? Prime Originals? Not exactly raking in the Emmys. But still… it’s Prime. It’s necessary.

The only one who can realistically break this deadlock is Walmart. Not by providing the same thing as Amazon, but by providing something simpler and more focused, taking over the workhorse duties of Prime (shipping, sales, some basic media of opportunity) at a much lower price, granting the customer freedom to pursue their own choice in subscriptions while not meaningfully affecting their online retail experience.

What would this Walmart offering consist of? They already offer free shipping on a lot of items, free store pickup, and so on. You don’t need to use your imagination here. What would make this better? Free 2-day shipping on all items with no minimum amount; grocery and secure package delivery; a set of basic TV and music streams or even just a partnership with a couple existing products; and lastly some in-store benefits like members-only promotions and perhaps even early access on Black Friday. (Plus extra perks at sub-chains like Sam’s Club.)

Leveraging Walmart’s brick and mortar presence is important, but it’s hard to say what they have the leeway to try there, as it’s likely a delicate balance. But it’s a major advantage to have regular visitors to major retail locations, whereas Amazon has to either home-deliver or install lockers.

There are already indications this is happening — a pilot with a smart-lock company for home delivery, a rumored streaming service, cashierless(ish) checkout (even easier with an account), revamping of existing grocery delivery partnerships, emphasis on cloning or promoting existing services that match or exceed Amazon’s… it looks a lot like a shift to an end-to-end loyalty service.

Whoops: SoftBank CEO reveals Walmart has acquired Flipkart

There are rumors of a Microsoft-powered standalone smart device, but that might conflict with existing voice-ordering partnership with Google. Still, voice assistants are hot and Walmart needs an answer to Alexa if it wants to compete directly with Amazon in the living room. A possible acquisition of Shopify could conceivably broaden the company’s reach considerably as well.

How much would it cost? I’d say if they go about $50 per year they’re asking for trouble. It’s one of those magic numbers not just on its own, but in relation to Amazon’s $120 per year. $60 would be merely half price — $50, why that’s positively generous!

And the considerable savings opens up a bit of cash for secondary subscriptions like Netflix, which ends up, ironically, causing consumers to lock themselves into Walmart just as they were with Amazon, since once again they can’t switch easily! But they will almost certainly be getting more for their money.

Naturally $50 won’t pay for all that stuff on Walmart’s side — but building brand loyalty on the scale of years, while sucking a customer from a competitor… that’s worth spending a little cash for.

Timing-wise they’d want to announce this well ahead of the holidays — at least three months. First three months free if you sign up now and all that. It’ll be a big cash outlay but you don’t unseat a titan like Amazon on a shoestring budget. You do what it takes to put items in carts and go from there.

Walmart won’t risk its business on this, but it makes sense to do it now and do it with vigor. Walmart doesn’t get by on word of mouth — it needs a full court press ahead of Amazon’s busiest period, in which it can unequivocally say “This is the better option for you. Switch now and you’ll never look back.”

The real question is: what will they call it? MartLand? WalSmart? Or perhaps… Wal Street?

Via Devin Coldewey https://techcrunch.com

[movietvtechgeeks]

Latest story from https://movietvtechgeeks.com/comcast-sees-customers-leaving-cord-cutting-bad-customer-service/

Comcast sees customers leaving from cord cutting and bad customer service

Comcast should have known that returning to bad customer service along with trying to force them into that additional $50 so they don't get charged extra when their bandwidth usage mysteriously hits that 1TB cap would wind up hurting them. It's no secret that the media conglomerate has suffered from not so great customer service, but for a short period of time they seemed to have overcome that. After the latest stunt of customers suddenly seeing their broadband data usage jump three to four times their normal amount a few months ago, they've had enough. Many could put up with the service visits that wound up being a waste of time, but being pushed into an additional $50 a month is just a bridge too far. We here at MTTG have had our own personal hell dealing with Comcast the past 7 months, and it has gotten rather nasty with their corporate 'Comcast Cares' department working hard to shirk their responsibilities. Many will be familiar with our story as it started as with our internet going out regularly for no reason. We had 15 different service techs come out only to try something different and hope that fixed it. But within 24 hours the problem would return with the fix only making this even worse. If we hadn't continued calling them (even having to pester them on Twitter), they would have assumed the problem was fixed. We learned one thing that techs do is give you their phone number to contact them (but then they never contact you back) as that keeps their record clean. It seems that if a service tech comes to your house and doesn't fix the problem and you call Comcast about that, they get a bad mark on their report. So, some will try to get you to call them instead of making it look like they'll take care of you. We wound up having 8 different service techs phone numbers. Each one promised that as the problem continued after several months, we would be reimbursed for all the problems that Comcast was causing us, but sadly, that was also a load of bull. We wound up getting #ComcastCares on Twitter, and they had a corporate person contact us. That corporate person asked the problem, and we relayed everything, including how the Comcast Home Security we were paying for hadn't worked for a full year while they continued charging us for it. It seems this didn't go over well with Cheyenne S. in the Executive Customer Relations, and she tried to turn it into our fault. This only lets me realize how far Comcast cared anymore about their customers, and we've gotten numerous emails from other customers going through similar issues. Thus, with so many options out there, Comcast should have realized that eventually treating your customers horribly would wind up biting you in the butt. And no, our problem was never fixed by Comcast as we enter month 8. The cable company added TV customers last year for the first time in a decade. But on Thursday it posted its biggest quarterly cable-customer loss since 2014. Research firm MoffettNathanson predicts that industrywide, traditional video subscriptions fell 3.4 percent in the third quarter. That would mean that people ditched their TV subscriptions at the fastest rate since online streaming started eating into cable’s business. Partly to blame in the July-September quarter were the hurricanes that struck Texas and Florida, damaging poles, wires and other infrastructure and interrupting service for millions. But Comcast and other cable and satellite TV companies also say competition from online sources of video is taking a toll. Comcast is still making more money per customer, however. Comcast video customers fell 125,000 in the third quarter, echoing trends from rivals AT&T and Verizon. AT&T’s traditional TV customers dropped 385,000, while Verizon posted its third straight quarter of video losses. If Verizon has a negative number for the year, it would be the first time since it started up a cable business over a decade ago. This comes as Netflix, of course, has been streaming video for a decade, and Hulu almost as long. But there’s been a burst of original content from those services — Hulu picked up cachet with an Emmy for its original series “Handmaid’s Tale” in September — as well as on Amazon. HBO and other premium channels are available without any cable subscription. And there’s now a plethora of cable replacement services that stream traditional TV channels, live, and cost less than traditional cable. The latest launched in April (YouTube TV) and May (Hulu’s version). Analysts estimate that these online versions of cable have picked up a few million customers in the past 2 1/2 years. Prices are substantially lower than they are for traditional cable. Google’s YouTube TV costs $35 a month and includes a DVR and many popular networks (no CNN, TBS, HGTV or Discovery Channel, though); Sling starts at $20. AT&T is discounting its DirecTV Now to $10 for customers with unlimited AT&T wireless plans. Comcast is offering some cheaper, skinnier packages, but isn’t going to “chase unprofitable video subs,” said Comcast cable executive Matt Strauss at a recent investor conference. Comcast added 214,000 broadband customers, down from 330,000 in last year’s quarter. That was also hurt by the storm. Still, the company’s average revenue per customer rose 2 percent, to $151.51, from a year ago. Customers are taking more services, like DVRs, and Comcast raised its prices. New Street Research analyst Jonathan Chaplin expects that internet prices, in particular, are going to rise across the industry. On a call with analysts Thursday, CEO Brian Roberts said that “as the market for video shifts,” Comcast’s “broadband business is increasingly the epicenter of our relationship with customers and ultimately where derive the majority of our profitability.” He added that Comcast was still “committed” to video. In Comcast’s NBCUniversal unit, the bonanza from last year’s Olympics weighed on this quarter’s results. Revenue dropped 13 percent to $8 billion. The company says that when results are adjusted to exclude the Olympics, revenue from its cable networks and broadcast networks, NBC and Telemundo, both rose. Films were flat, and revenue from theme parks grew nearly 8 percent to $1.55 billion. Overall, the Philadelphia company’s net income rose 18.5 percent to $2.65 billion. Revenue fell 1.6 percent to $20.98 billion. Comast shares slipped 11 cents to $36.72 in afternoon trading.

Movie TV Tech Geeks News

[jamieclawhorn]

Is Neil Woodford dividend stock Provident Financial plc a buy after 16% slump?

Shares of FTSE 100 sub-prime lender Provident Financial (LSE: PFG) fell by more than 16% when markets opened on Wednesday. The slump was triggered by a profit warning in which the firm said that profits from its consumer credit division are expected to fall by 48% to £60m this year.

This stock has been a steady performer in recent years and has become one of Neil Woodford’s top holdings. At the end of May, it was the third-largest holding in Woodford’s Income Focus Fund and the fourth-largest in the fund manager’s flagship Equity Income Fund. So what’s gone wrong?

Staff shortages

Provident is in the process of switching its doorstep lending organisation from using self-employed collecting agents to a smaller number of employed “Customer Experience Managers”. This change seems to be causing more disruption than expected.

The company says that the restructuring has caused a £40m shortfall in loan collections and resulted in new lending levels £37m lower than during the same period last year. Vacancy levels among the collection workforce have been running at 12%, twice the expected rate.

The new organisation will take effect in July, when operating performance is expected to improve. But the shortfall in collections and lending will take time to make up. Management now expects the consumer credit division to generate a profit of £60m this year, down from £115m last year.

This is disappointing, especially as on 12 May, the company said that the impact would only be “up to £10m for 2017”. However, the group reported a net profit of £262.9m last year, so a one-off shortfall of £55m should be manageable.

Should you sell?

This workforce reorganisation appears to have been badly planned or perhaps poorly executed. But this should be a fixable problem. As far as we know, it shouldn’t affect the company’s medium-term performance.

Provident’s management has performed well in recent years, delivering average earnings per share and dividend growth of 15% since 2011. With the stock trading on a forecast P/E of 13.3 and with a prospective yield of almost 6%, I would hold on after today’s news.

A top Woodford small-cap

Neil Woodford appears to be keen on the sub-prime credit sector. His fund participated in the IPO of doorstep lender Non-Standard Finance (LSE: NSF) in 2015 and the stock remains a significant holding in both of his income funds.

Although it’s a new arrival on the stock market, this company was founded in 1938. The firm remains a fan of using self-employed collection agents and has said it has no intention of copying its larger rival Provident in switching to employed staff.

For investors, Non-Standard Finance presents an interesting income opportunity. Following a number of acquisitions, normalised revenue rose from £14.7m to £81.1m last year, while normalised operating profit rose to £13.8m. Further growth is expected this year and the company plans to start paying out 50% of normalised earnings per share. This gives the stock a forecast yield of 3.5%, rising to 5% in 2018.

Buying at current levels could lock in an attractive long-term income stream. For investors who are happy to invest in this sector, Non-Standard Finance may be worth a closer look.

Today's top income buy?

Provident Financial and Non-Standard Finance both operate in the same sector. But relying on a single sector for dividend income is highly risky.

Mr Woodford's income funds are diversified across a number of sectors, many of which are represented in our exclusive income investing report, 5 Shares To Retire On. This must-read report contains details of five shares our analysts would buy in today's uncertain market.

The good news is that this report is free and without obligation. To receive your copy today, just click here now.

More reading

2 FTSE 100 stocks for retirement income AND growth

2 growth stocks for the long term

Roland Head has no position in any shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors.