On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Darren Glass <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Kevin wrote: > > > With ratings slipping, ABC feels their best choice is to deny a point of > access to viewers. It will > not work. It cannot work. There are no > examples I can think of where cutting off access to >shows builds an > audience for those shows. > > Really, Kevin? You can't think of any examples where charging for media > was a successful business model? > > My understanding is that the lesson that (to some extent) saved the music > industry from falling into even deeper financial problems was that most > people were using Napster et al not because they craved free music but > because they craved easy online music, and once online stores like itunes > et al came around to sell people songs at 99 cents a pop, the amount of > piracy plummeted. > Using PGage's point, Napster's "business model" was to allow for illegal downloads, which isn't a business model as such. So when iTunes came along with an easy and legal method, it wasn't really competing with a different model. That'd be like saying people who sell cars are competing against people who steal them. But as I did claim ABC's choice will lead some to online piracy, or at least it will lead some to justify such behavior. Because in this instance ABC isn't making things easier for viewers, they are eliminating an option because they are literally too stupid to figure out how to monetize it. > Similarly, the movie industry is doing pretty well with a model where you > can pay a lot to see a movie in the theater, pay somewhat less to see a > movie pay per view a little later (or in many cases at the same time or > before you would see it in a theater), pay even less to get it on premium > cable or Netflix or buy it on itunes, and finally get it for free on TV > much later. > You just mentioned several industries. Movie theater chains are offering everything short of fluffers to lure people into theaters. And the theater chains that have succeeded have done so at the peril of massive employee layoffs. Just as TV stations laid off engineers when they made the switch to digital, theaters laid off projectionists and service techs when Lucas got his wish and celluloid was eliminated as a presentation medium. That particular industry is struggling. Meanwhile, you have studios that spend sometimes double or triple to cost of a picture to promote the picture. Box office numbers amount to a fraction of the profit metric that they did even a decade ago because the cost of marketing required to get people to experience a film in a theater is on the verge of being prohibitive. Again, this is because major studios don't know how to market to whatever label they've given to the latest few generations of people. I mentioned Kevin Smith in an earlier post bucking the trend and bypassing studios. Another terrific example was the rebranding and release of the Muppet movie two years back. A team of dedicated people within the Henson walls made it their personal mission to generate online buzz about the Muppets, which was essentially dead as a franchise. The Muppet YouTube channel and Twitter feed created countless viral memes, and those outlets more than any other led to the financial success of the movie. Contrast that with the soon to be released Muppet film, which has been guided more by the studio executives and an old school approach to marketing... it will die (if it is lucky) a slow and quick death. Now contrast that with the soon to be released Lego movie, which is basically a big screen meme in and of itself. As for citing the free nature of OTA television, the reason behind ABC making this move is because it is hemorrhaging OTA viewers and rather than try to cultivate the online audience they have, they want to force some of them back to broadcast. Sorry to burst all your examples like that, but, well, there you go. I really have no idea what the "best" business model for network TV is > these days -- I strongly suspect that the real answer is that different > models would work better for different tv shows (which is essentially what > happens with podcasts, where some people are happy to take a loss in order > to build a brand, others charge outright, and others use the NPR voluntary > payment model) but I imagine that any given tv network won't go down that > road. But no matter what the "right" answer is, I just cant comprehend how > you feel that what ABC is doing is either unethical or unprecedented or > clinging to an old business model. > > And I can't comprehend how you can manage to not see that. What do you envision ABC executives hope to gain by imposing limits on online access? Will the audience they are shutting out express gratitude or loyalty towards ABC? Will they pay money to ABC for an option other networks and content distributors offer freely? As for the "best" business model, there isn't one for networks... not anymore. As someone referenced it earlier, a few years ago I could have envisioned the Max Headroom "20 minutes into the future" where networks had almost godlike control over their audience, but they screwed the pooch by rejecting "a la carte" (hint for any would-be gods among us: gods don't distribute wealth across a broad spectrum). So networks will die off, and that will most likely happen before the next generation of consumers gets its own nickname. The least-worst business model for networks would be to make the transition to content creators across the media spectrum, which requires a shift from mass appeal to limited but devoted audiences. Dan Harmon of "Community" has frequently spoken of a meeting he had with an executive at FX. He told Harmon (paraphrasing), "You'll never have the 5th most popular show seen by 50 million people, but you could have the most important thing ever to a cult-like following of maybe one or two million people." And Harmon has total control over his fanbase, as Kevin Smith has total control over his, as Lady Gaga has over hers, as Louis CK has over his, as Lil Wayne has over his, and on and on. Networks still want Cosby and Seinfeld ratings through conventional (outdated) methods. The ones who act independently of the old system are the ones paving the way. Middlemen inside networks and studios are going bye-bye. As for it being unethical, it specifically impacts the poorest in its audience. That might not be unethical, but it is mean and spiteful. As for it being unprecedented, I never said it was. Fox did it, and it watched shows it owned and aired that were once adored by the much coveted demographics slip further away. Remember when "Animation Domination" wasn't an ironic description of Fox's Sunday night lineup? -- 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.
