On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:23 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Nordstroms isn't offering merchandise for sale one day only, only to tell >> you you have to wait a week to buy it if you don't make it to the stores by >> closing time on that day. >> >> It is disincentivizing honest streaming of their programing. I am sick to >> death of the same two ads that run on shows I watch on CBS.com, but CBS >> makes programing available on its website either same day or the next day, >> and I support that model. Recently, Fox has been the only major hold-out of >> that basic concept of allowing viewers to have the choice immediately. We >> do, as you know, exist in a world governed by instant gratification, like >> it or not. >> >> We've all seen the trends of people dropping cable in favor of watching >> shows via wifi. ABC thinks they can slow that trend (or reverse it) and >> draw viewers back to the TV? That's laughable. Networks haven't been able >> to devise a business model that allows them to profit from streaming video >> the way they generate profit from over-the-air ad sales, but rather than >> face that reality and try something new, they want to pull their programing >> back into its over-the-air shell in the futile hope viewers will crawl in >> with them. It is incredibly naive. (SNIP) >> > > But wait. You (and anyone else) can purchase ABC's content the exact same > day that airs (via i-tunes). All they are doing is making you wait one week > to get it for free. The analogy would be bashing Nordstroms because they > make you pay for a sweater the first week it is in their store, but they > give it away for free if you wait a week. But that would be odd, wouldn't > it? >
No such thing as a perfect analogy. My bad for using one. I won't bother to clarify an imperfect analogy and focus on the primary topic. > > I am interested in how you define the term "honest streaming" of > programing. Does this only mean "free streaming"? > It means a network or other content distributor providing programs for audiences to consume. This can be through apps, website streaming, Hulu, YouTube, NetFlix, or iTunes, each with varying prices ranging from free to costly. What ABC announced is that online viewers now have an imposed handicap they didn't have a week ago. The only people affected by this change are those unwilling or unable to opt for one of the paid online options. > I thought the argument here was about a la carte, and those in favor of > that model have won. > Actually, the 'a la carte' phrase applied to viewers being able to select which network or networks they wanted to have on their cable system, as opposed to lumps or bundles that subsidized a wide variety of options viewers had no interest in. That never happened, which led to an increase in pay-per-view/on-demand alternatives that essentially bypass networks altogether. Had cable buckled on 'a la carte,' the network model would've remained viable (albeit more competitive) for many more years to come. Granted it would've been a harder road, but a longer road for the networks who earned viewer loyalty. But network executives were greedy, lazy, and short-sighted. > If you want to see episodes of Castle the day they air, but nothing else > on ABC, you can just purchase those on i-tunes; or you can wait a week and > watch it for free. None of this seems unreasonable to me. It does seem > unreasonable to say "Give us your content for free or we will steal it". > As I said, there are other legal options, specifically to me, not watching anything offered on their network -- choosing other shows offered by other content providers. This change affects lower and middle class people who can't afford season passes on iTunes, but who are ironically a highly sought demographic for most advertisers, since the upper class will typically do as you suggest and pay extra for ad-free content. Forcing those people (and those people includes me) to wait while others with discretionary income don't have to wait is a good way to insult an audience. And when you insult an audience, they are less likely to buy the products you promote. And when advertisers don't get their money's worth, they pull their money. And when networks don't get advertiser money, they shut down. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
