With time shifting, I would think the value (or more the lack of value) of not only the content changes but also the ad, probably more so. A company can go out of business, change hands, change products, and would probably have a new version of the product at a later date. If the ad was generic enough it may have longer pertinence. But I would think the ad would be less meaningful and valuable to the company paying for it in time.
-- Enric -======- http://www.cirne.com --- In [email protected], robert a/k/a r <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Adam, correct, the time-shift thing is very true, I'm thinking the > pricing of the forward commodity, the advert, are and time-shifting are > both in that equation some where. In the past, when calculating CPM and > such the time-shift was not as significant because the media was better > controlled. And today, when you lose control of the media you can't > control first-run vs re-run pricing in the same way, if at all. > > Further, continuing with the RB example, they chose to sell a weeks > worth, which bundles mondays, tuesdays, etc and makes a unit. They > could have auctioned just next monday and separately next tuesday, but > they didn't. They made a conscious decision to sell a strip, which > homogenises the price. Is a friday worth more than a tuesday? Who > knows. If you watch the RB episode manufactured on tuesday time-shifted > to friday is it worth more? If you watch it a year from now what is > that advert worth? > > And they chose the length of the strip as a risk / reward decision. > What if RB had sold a months worth of adverts as a block. If they had, > RB would have had less risk, though they may have received a lower > price. Risk/reward at work there too. > > Seems like there's a lot of blending going on in new media pricing. > This is not totally new science, however it is good to think about in > the context of vlog economics. > > > > > On Feb 15, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Adam Quirk wrote: > > > On 2/15/06, robert a/k/a r <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Obviously such variable pricing works because the number of seats in > >> the theatre is limited and they have a half life. It's not dissimilar > >> to the freshness of vegetables on the shelf at the grocer which > >> expire > >> or the freshness of media. If a seat in the theatre goes unsold it's > >> not recoverable. If a bunch of carrots go unsold they are not > >> recoverable. > >> > >> What happens to the price for a "show" on the Internet once it is no > >> longer fresh, can it still be sold as "new"? Can a secondary market > >> develop and, if so, how will it work? > > One of the things that internet distribution has going for it is the > > ability to time-shift the media, which cuts into this theory a little > > bit. Although for shows like Rocketboom that deal with current > > events, or news shows, I guess the carrot analogy holds true. > > Most stuff I watch doesn't necessarily lose value as time goes by. > > > > Sites like the NYtimes charge people for archive diving. Maybe > > there's something there. The latest week's worth of media is freely > > distributable by all the available means, but anything older than a > > week costs X, where X is a reasonable price for a short video that > > someone wants to watch. > > > > AQ > 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/
