I really don't think this is that big of a deal. How much of the tech savvy audience out there who know how to pirate TV shows really need to see this week's episode of "Once Upon a Time in Wonderland" today? I don't think the network is losing any money on the delay and is only making the value added nature of the product they offer to cable satellite providers that much more valuable.
Broadcasting a show to a million people on the network live is the same cost as broadcasting to 10 million. The same is not true for streaming. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Darren Glass <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > -- +++++++++++++++ Joe Coughlin http://www.twitter.com/inturnaround -- -- 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.
