On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 6:38 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. > They expect to gain more profit by delaying a viewer's ability to watch a program. Not sure how that relates to iTunes becoming a one-stop shopping destination for music. Speaking specifically to the fatal flaw of iTunes, it made a tremendous amount of money for Apple, and it did provide viewers with the financial means a great way to procure media, but content creators and the middlemen in the distribution don't see it making enough money for them in the long term. Hence Hulu. Hence Netflix. Hence people bypassing any organized distribution model and going independent. > 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 keep applying for jobs as a network executive. Alas, not even the courtesy of a rejection letter. I think it is because I wear socks. I never met a network executive who wore socks. In some seriousness, back when Burbank had a flourishing NBC Page program, we were allowed to meet and ask questions of network executives. The two that stood out for very different reasons were Don Ohlmeyer and Preston Beckman. Ohlmeyer lost all credibility when he insisted that "The Torkelsons" was more popular at the time than the movie "Titanic," and he staunchly defended his view until he was redfaced. Beckman actually impressed me with his candor; for instance he openly admitted to the lack of diversity in prime time, stating quite clearly that as long as the majority of America was white and heterosexual, the majority of TV characters would be as well. At the time (15 years or so ago), the biggest fear for NBC was not the internet, but that cable series like "South Park" were succeeding in ways the networks couldn't comprehend. "South Park" would not have succeeded on NBC or CBS or ABC, so their tiny network executive brains could not comprehend how it succeeded on cable, as it failed to follow any previously tried formula or template. None of them could see past the immediate challenge of cable, let alone prepare their own networks for the new media revolution that was just around the corner. Had I been a stockholder, I'd have tried to get a class action lawsuit filed, because their shortsightedness was clear evidence of negligence. People with a lot less common sense than me were begging the network to take advantage of the internet and to prepare to alter their business model to make way for on-demand options. Instead, that year NBC changed their relationship with affiliates -- for 50 years, the networks paid affiliates to broadcast their shows, but in the late 90s they reversed it and made affiliates pay the networks. If you research who started championing early online video content, you'll see the names of several affiliate conglomerates among the principle backers. As I said earlier in the thread, people know how to hold grudges. > > 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. > I don't think we need to start from scratch, but I believe that is what is ultimately happening because the old refuses to play in the same sandbox as the new. Maybe I'm sentimentalizing the past, but from what I've read and seen, there was a concerted effort by the companies in charge as people transitioned from radio to the dawn of television. Companies in radio were the ones who invested in television technology because they saw the future long term potential of it, and they saw radio as the past, even as they profited from it. The same can't be said of television's involvement in the internet -- they fight the future with every move. OK, not every move, but most. I actually had hope when MSNBC debuted, but it quickly became obvious that Microsoft was going its way and NBC was going its, and there was no true partnership or experiment > > 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. > Well, Harmon got his show back, he has four other shows in development on three networks, a second show, "Rick & Morty," on the air, and a bio-pic documentary about himself due out this year based on his experiences on the road. Financially, he's better than he was when all he had was a freshman sitcom on NBC. > > > 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. > Taking the phrase out of context distorts the phrase. "There are no examples I can think of where cutting off access to shows builds an audience for those shows." I can think of examples where networks cut off access, and I've cited several, hence it isn't unprecedented. But I can't think of any examples that led to profit. When Fox delayed its online media by a week to two weeks, their anchor shows on the main network gradually lost their buzz. Shows on FX that had a long-running story arc lost ratings because if people missed a week, there was no opportunity to catch up before the next episode aired. To attempt it is not unprecedented, but to succeed in such an attempt would be. I concede I've come off as a pompous know-it-all blowhard in this thread. Hard not to when I've had conversations about this stuff with the powers-that-be 15 years ago, and now their metaphorical chickens are coming home to roost. But I have listened to what others have said. I agree with Joe C that this isn't a big deal in the scheme of things, but it is continued evidence of the decline of the network system (I suspect pressure from cable and sat. companies led to the decision as well, but that's just an educated guess with no proof). With the exception of breaking news and sports, people are growing less and less interested in playing by network rules. None of the media networks are working towards transitioning to a new media world, so the new media is starting from scratch without them. The legacy media empires that have existed for 75 years or more are relics now, pop culture museums. It's sad, because it didn't have to be that way. I taught at a film school located in what was once the RCA Records building on Sunset Blvd. Elvis, The Rolling Stones, and members of the Rat Pack all recorded there. John Williams conducted the film scores of some of the most watched movies in the world there. And now it is gone, replaced by a diploma factory. In a world where millions are familiar with the catch-phrase, "... from beautiful downtown Burbank..." NBC Studios in Burbank no longer exists, sold to a developer where it'll be bulldozed and turned into an office park. The CBS studio facility which once housed radio and TV next to Roscoe's Chicken N Waffles has been razed. These companies and buildings once anchored the entertainment industry and the towns in which they existed. Not anymore. But all that's gonna change for the better because ABC is time-delaying online content by a week? Sorry. No. -- 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.
