> >> 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.
Whether it is due to my poor explanation or your sheer unwillingness to actually interact with people who you disagree with -- or more likely some combination of the two -- you have utterly failed to understand my point, which was that ABC is trying to monetize their shows in a way that seems to me incredibly similar to how the music industry eventually realized they could monetize through iTunes. I > 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. Given the large number of smart people (and larger number of dumb ones) who have failed to figure out how to monetize the ways that 20-somethings use the internet, I think this is an overly hostile way of framing it. If you have figured out a better way, I think you could probably make a lot of money. >> 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. If your fundamental point is that the whole concept of TV networks is outmoded and not relevant in the age we live in going forward, then I think there is an 80% chance that you are right, for lots of reasons, some of which are what I detailed above. Certainly if we were to start building a new entertainment industry from scratch the concept of networks would look very different from the traditional TV networks. Maybe I'm optimistic (or is it pessimistic? I'm not sure), but I think there is a 20% chance that they will find business models that do work for them, and I think that ABC's model is a reasonable experiment for them to try based on what is somewhat working in other industries. > 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, ...and how is that working out financially for Harmon or the show? I seem to be in that tiny minority of people who enjoy Community but not rabidly so, and my understanding is that nobody has yet to figure out how to make much money off the show, no matter how much fan art people make about it. > As for it being unprecedented, I never said it was. You said "There are no examples I can think of". If you are trying to legalistically parse the difference between that and "unprecedented" then have fun arguing with yourself. - dg -- -- 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.
