TV Networks Grow Tired of Pretty Face, Decide to Cut off Nose
By Michael Weinberg on July 27, 2011 - 12:44pm
http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/tv-networks-grow-tired-pretty-face-decide-cut

It is being widely reported today that Fox is removing next-day content from 
Hulu for everyone but selected “verified” cable and satellite subscribers, and 
that other networks are considering following suit.  Under the new plan, the 
only people who could watch content in the week following the original airdate 
are people who already subscribe to some subset of approved cable and satellite 
services.  This makes sense everywhere but in reality.

When it was first announced, one of the most amazing things about Hulu was that 
it suggested that the TV industry had actually learned some lessons from the 
music industry.  Enforcement alone was not going to eliminate piracy.  However, 
if you give the public an easy, reliable, legal way to access content they will 
flock to it.

The TV studios appeared to be recognizing that, while people prefer illegally 
downloading shows to nothing, they prefer an easy-to-use, legal service to 
illegal downloads.  Hulu promised next day viewing of shows in exchange for 
watching a few ads.  People loved that deal.  In 36 months, Hulu went from two 
content partners and a dozen advertisers to 627 advertisers and 250 content 
partners. 

Strangely, this success caused the studios to forget what drove them to create 
Hulu in the first place.  For the past two years, content owners have forced 
Hulu to take steps that make it a less attractive alternative to piracy.  They 
limited the browsers that viewers could use. They imposed irregular rules on 
when and for how long episodes and seasons of shows were available, undermining 
the public’s confidence that Hulu would have what they were looking for.  They 
pulled some of the content behind a Hulu Plus paywall, although to their credit 
anyone was eligible to join Hulu Plus, not just existing cable and satellite 
subscribers.

Now, content owners are closing the door on new programming for anyone who is 
not a cable or satellite subscriber.  In  the short term, this helps the 
networks protect the value of their contracts with those cable and satellite 
providers.  In the long term, as the Wall Street Journal noted, it “kicks off 
the great web video piracy boom of 2011.”  

Making Hulu harder to use will push people back towards illegal options.  That 
movement will continue as long as, in the words of Slate’s Bill Wyman “the 
easiest and most convenient way to see the movies or TV shows you want is to 
get them illegally.”  Hulu originally undermined the truth of that statement.  
Now Fox and any networks that follow are doing their best to keep it true.

This also harms consumers (and networks) in another way.  It takes limitations 
built into the existing cable and satellite TV infrastructure and unnecessarily 
duplicates them online.

Currently, consumers have a very limited set of choices when it comes to 
subscription video.  If they are lucky, they can choose between a pair of 
satellite services and maybe two more cable services.  For many, those options 
are much smaller.  This limitation is a byproduct of physical reality.  
Satellite TV requires the ability to mount a dish with clear line of sight to 
the southern sky.  Cable requires physically hauling a cable all the way to 
your house.

Internet video does not suffer from these limitations.  Once you have a 
broadband connection, you can access any internet delivered video service. 
Those services do not require a satellite dish mounted with a clear line of 
sight to the south, or dragging a new wire to every consumer’s home.  Freed 
from these limitations, internet delivered video promises a new chapter in 
video competition.

This competition benefits consumers, but it also benefits networks.  Instead of 
being beholden to one cable company to reach viewers (as Fox and Cablevision 
illustrated in New York City last fall) there would be multiple paths to reach 
the public and multiple partners to negotiate with.

But none of this seems to matter for networks.  They have relied on a business 
model in the past, and they will cling to it in the future.  Instead of 
nurturing services that consumers want, networks appear to prefer to spend 
their energy finding new ways to step up enforcement (and pushing for laws that 
will break the internet without actually reducing illegal activity).  It would 
seem that the brief period of actually trying to meet consumers’ needs is 
nearing an end.
_______________________________________________
Infowarrior mailing list
[email protected]
https://attrition.org/mailman/listinfo/infowarrior

Reply via email to