>From what Ive seen its going to be a mess to start with. That article you posted shows some of the big $ possibilities that motivate some of the players in this stuff. They want to change the status quo for reasons a bit different to videobloggers, like squeezing more $ out of parners and consumers.
I believe there will be a bewildering array of different delivery software system sused by different players in this emerging market. Nearly all of them will sacrifice some useability/viewers rights to satisfy anti-piracy fears. Some will be browser based and not much different to the porn etc content that has been purchasable as in-browser viewing for years. Some will use streaming to maximise advert control and stats. Some will partner with things like that Kontiki stuff and utilise Peer2Peer for delivery. Some may be free but the content expires after a certain time (think BBC are working on this sort of model). I dont know how long it will take for things to settle down into less different systems that are less confusing to the average consumer. There are financial reasons not to be sane n this department, but if it puts millions off using the stuff then they will ahve a cahnge of heart over time. Developments in the hadware player market will make a difference. ISPs that are also cable Tv companies will have their offerings that may be straight to digital set-top-box and feel far more familiar and 'TV-on-demand' like than podcastlike or bloggy. Its not clear to me how much this stuff will overlap with videoblogging at all. If the delivery systems are closed and tv-like, it may not teach the masses anything about comment, tag or make your own. It should teach people about 'subscribing' but I dont know what difference this will make. Flawed though the current itunes podcast directory is, it might actually represent the closest the 2 things come to being integrated into the same application, I hope not, time will tell. I suspect this stuff will push forwards the liklihood of existing broadcast regulations being made to cover internet video too, danger danger. Steve of Elbows --- In [email protected], Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I do not bring this up to spur the videoblogging vs TV argument. > but there is a real push for content providers for tradtional TV > outlets to start offering downloable video on the web. this will > definitely start teaching new people how to get video off the web... > but how will they do it? > through Flash players? > iTunes-like stores only? > what about subscribing to feeds? > > as videobloggers, we have a challenge to teach people the blogging > metaphor many of us use. > subscribe and watch. > comment, tag, or make your own.... > > The challenge is to provide a larger buffet table... > right now, you have a wide variety of commercial video to watch, but > no easy way to see anything else. we are helping lay down the > foundation for different choices and voices. > We wont get much help advertising for this from the big boys since > competition is not profitable. > depend on ourselves. > > jay > ___________ > > On-Demand Television Viewing > Could Boost Broadcasters' Hand > > Networks Seek New Leverage in Debate > With Cable Companies Over Carriage Fees > November 23, 2005 > > The last few weeks have seen a raft of business deals aimed at making > it easier for television viewers to watch shows whenever and wherever > they choose. These new arrangements, including NBC and CBS's plans for > 99-cent video-on-demand and Apple's iPod link-up with ABC, have been > described as yet another sign that the traditional way of doing > business in broadcast television is coming apart. > > But alternative content distribution might be the best thing to happen > to the broadcast networks in a long time. In recent years, the major > broadcasters have struggled as they watched viewers and, increasingly, > advertisers migrate to other sources of entertainment. The new > distribution deals could help the networks recoup some of that lost > revenue, as consumers pay to watch their favorite shows. But perhaps > more importantly, these pacts might give the networks added leverage > in their contention that they should be compensated by cable and > satellite companies who distribute the broadcasters' signal into the > vast majority of U.S. homes. > > Under the deals announced over the last few weeks, viewers who > subscribe to Comcast Corp.'s cable service or DirecTV's satellite > television will be able to order episodes of some prime-time shows for > viewing later, on television, for 99 cents apiece. Both of the deals > are essentially trial runs, but if they are successful, they could > become standard fixtures. Walt Disney Co.'s ABC, meanwhile, struck a > deal with Apple Computer Inc., under which episodes of shows including > "Desperate Housewives" and "Lost" can be watched on an Apple video > iPod for $1.99 an episode. > > There is no denying that the distribution agreements represent a > turning point for the broadcast networks. In a world where the > majority of television homes have access to scores if not hundreds of > channels and myriad other entertainment options, finding new ways to > deliver content to viewers is crucial. But one of the major catalysts > for these pacts that was lost in the noise surrounding the > announcements is a desire on the part of the broadcast networks to > force cable and satellite operators to pay the networks for their > programming. > > For years, broadcasters and local television stations have been > frustrated that cable carriers shell out fees to the parent companies > of cable networks based on the number of subscribers to their > services, but pay nothing to transmit the signals of ABC, NBC, Fox and > CBS into viewers' homes. So, for example, big cable companies like > Time Warner Inc. or Comcast pay 55 cents to General Electric Co.'s USA > Network for every household that receives the cable signal. > > Cable operators long have argued that it is unfair to ask them to pay > for a signal that people can receive free with an over-the-air > antenna. The broadcasters counter that if their signals weren't part > of a cable operator's package, few people would subscribe. > > The growing popularity of time-shifting could play into the > broadcasters' favor in the dispute. That's because the networks reason > that if consumers demonstrate they are willing to pay 99 cents or more > for any individual broadcast program, broadcasters will be able to > claim that their entire line-up should be worth at least a couple of > bucks per viewer. > > That, at least, is what Viacom Inc.'s CBS is thinking, say people > familiar with the network's thinking. Chairman and Chief Executive > Leslie Moonves has made no secret that he believes his network should > be paid by cable and satellite operators in the same way the cable > networks are compensated. > > Similarly, NBC's deal with DirecTV is designed ultimately to pry > carriage fees from the satellite-TV service. DirecTV for its part is > hoping the NBC partnership will bolster sales of DirecTV's new digital > video recorder-equipped box -- viewers won't be able to sign up for > the NBC on-demand service without the unit, which functions as a > TiVo-like recorder. > > There are other reasons why the broadcast networks are willing to go > ahead with alternative distribution: While video-on-demand could > siphon off a fraction of the prime-time audience, its impact is likely > to be minimal. A fan of "CSI" who also likes "Without a Trace" isn't > going to forgo watching one show to catch a video-on-demand version of > the other. > > Broadcast networks also increasingly rely on revenue from syndication > and DVD sales of their series. Since on-demand transmissions only will > be available for a limited time after a show's initial telecast, it is > hard to see how either of those two sources of income will be > cannibalized. > > At a panel discussion with network presidents held last week in New > York, moderator Anderson Cooper questioned whether making ABC's > "Desperate Housewives" available on an iPod would hurt the hit show's > Sunday night ratings. As the network executives noted, a regular > viewer who is sitting at home on a Sunday evening is unlikely to wait > a day, pay $1.99 and watch the drama on a tiny iPod screen. The iPod > option will primarily serve the viewers who wouldn't have been able to > watch the show during its original telecast. In other words, it's a > substitute, not a replacement. > > The broadcast networks can't sit back and relax, however. If viewers > decide 99 cents is too much for an episode of, say, CBS's "NCIS," or > if DVRs become commonplace, then the networks could find themselves > without any real leverage against the cable operators. > > And even if the distribution deals gives broadcasters more negotiating > power, these partnerships pose another threat to broadcasters' > influence: As time-shifting gains popularity, traditional, > advertising-driven viewership will be further undercut. That's > especially true for the networks' local television stations, who for > now reap zero benefits from these deals. > > One of the reasons that CBS and NBC can deliver these shows at 99 > cents apiece is that they own the programs on offer -- the broadcast > networks have an ownership stake in the majority of the shows in their > line-ups. If the networks expand their on-demand offerings to series > produced outside their own studios -- programs such as NBC's "My Name > is Earl" or CBS's "Without a Trace" -- the studios that create those > hits also will want a piece of the pie. Unless the networks and cable > operators want to split the 99-cent payment into three pieces instead > of two, it seems inevitable that the cost to viewers will rise. And if > consumers are willing to swallow a $4 charge to watch an on-demand > feature film, then perhaps $1.50 or $2 for a television show isn't > outrageous. > > "There has to be some kind of mechanism that guarantees the studios > some chunk of revenue," says Rob Stengel, an industry consultant > > The deals like those struck by NBC and CBS are really just baby steps > into alternate distribution. More link-ups, and shifting terms, are > likely to follow. The 99-cent price tag, for example, could turn out > to be too high, or too low. Interestingly, Robert Iger, chief > executive of ABC parent Disney, told analysts during a conference call > last week that his company probably would insist on higher payments > for iPod and other on-demand versions of its shows than the 99 cents > that CBS and NBC are seeking. > > What's apparent now is that consumers appear to be clear winners, as > competing sides of the entertainment industry jostle for their > attention. But another group sometimes ignored in the debate over > access to content stands to gain from the shift in how consumers watch > television: writers and producers, who need to develop television that > is compelling enough to make consumers pay extra for it. "It's > shifting the balance of power back into the hands of people who create > content," says former WB chief Jordan Levin. Given how much control a > few big companies exercise over what goes on TV, that probably isn't a > bad thing. > > Write to Joe Flint at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking. Stop slavery. http://us.click.yahoo.com/WpTY2A/izNLAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
