Comments on: The future of television http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2008/04/05/the-future-of-television/ Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:24:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: CableTechTalk http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2008/04/05/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-148641 CableTechTalk Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:25:42 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2008/04/05/the-future-of-television/#comment-148641 I'm not sure you're really clear on the whole idea of competing business models. Ever since the Web got really rolling, there are have some companies that offered content for a fee and those with advertising-supported businesses. There's no right or wrong, there's only business models that work and those that don't. Most Web content has moved from subscription fees to advertising. With iTunes, you can download the programming, watch it offline and perhaps enjoy higher resolution. Why do you assume NBC loses money if you watch a show online instead of buying it? I just zipped over to check out <em>Battlestar Galactica</em> and the episode had pre-roll advertising. I watch last week's <em>30 Rock</em> online today and it had ads as well. Why doesn't this makes sense economically? HBO does not yet have an online portal for their shows. They've announced one, but it will only be available to HBO subscribers, just as HBO On Demand is only available to HBO subscribers. As you say, you could rent previous seasons of <em>The Wire</em> on DVD, but new episodes aren't available. (I believe they did put <em>In Treatment</em> on YouTube.) That's HBO's decision. They're a premium service and I suspect that they don't want to do anything to cut into that revenue stream. You'd like to subscribe to only the channels you want, but your notions of what that would cost are off. You'd like to pay 10 bucks a month for 4 channels. <a href="http://www.cabletechtalk.com/cable-programming/2008/04/15/a-la-carte-less-for-more/" rel="nofollow">A recent Yankee Group study</a> says you'd pay $5-10 per channels, which makes your bill $20-40 bucks, right back up where you started. You're not alone. <a href="http://www.ncta.com/PublicationType/ExpertStudy/4209.aspx" rel="nofollow">Forrester Research did a study last year</a> that asked people to put together packages for a desired price. Respondents chose a simulated bundle with an average of 26 channels, but were only willing to spend $24.08 a month, less than $1 a channel, half of what they pay now. At that rate, programmers wouldn't make enough money back on subscription fees and advertisers wouldn't reach enough people to justify ad spending. You do correctly point out that models are evolving. Content is available on a wide variety of platforms. Programmers can make money in a variety of ways. New choices come out all the time. Unfortunately, you'd like to buy the programming you want and nothing more, you'd like to get it in a timely and efficient manner and you'd like to pay a low price, I don't think you can get all those things at once. I’m not sure you’re really clear on the whole idea of competing business models. Ever since the Web got really rolling, there are have some companies that offered content for a fee and those with advertising-supported businesses. There’s no right or wrong, there’s only business models that work and those that don’t.

Most Web content has moved from subscription fees to advertising. With iTunes, you can download the programming, watch it offline and perhaps enjoy higher resolution.

Why do you assume NBC loses money if you watch a show online instead of buying it? I just zipped over to check out Battlestar Galactica and the episode had pre-roll advertising. I watch last week’s 30 Rock online today and it had ads as well. Why doesn’t this makes sense economically?

HBO does not yet have an online portal for their shows. They’ve announced one, but it will only be available to HBO subscribers, just as HBO On Demand is only available to HBO subscribers. As you say, you could rent previous seasons of The Wire on DVD, but new episodes aren’t available. (I believe they did put In Treatment on YouTube.) That’s HBO’s decision. They’re a premium service and I suspect that they don’t want to do anything to cut into that revenue stream.

You’d like to subscribe to only the channels you want, but your notions of what that would cost are off. You’d like to pay 10 bucks a month for 4 channels. A recent Yankee Group study says you’d pay $5-10 per channels, which makes your bill $20-40 bucks, right back up where you started.

You’re not alone. Forrester Research did a study last year that asked people to put together packages for a desired price. Respondents chose a simulated bundle with an average of 26 channels, but were only willing to spend $24.08 a month, less than $1 a channel, half of what they pay now. At that rate, programmers wouldn’t make enough money back on subscription fees and advertisers wouldn’t reach enough people to justify ad spending.

You do correctly point out that models are evolving. Content is available on a wide variety of platforms. Programmers can make money in a variety of ways. New choices come out all the time. Unfortunately, you’d like to buy the programming you want and nothing more, you’d like to get it in a timely and efficient manner and you’d like to pay a low price, I don’t think you can get all those things at once.

]]> By: lila http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2008/04/05/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-147544 lila Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:01:49 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2008/04/05/the-future-of-television/#comment-147544 as more and more people get DVRs, that "see what's on" mentality will be less and less of the market. i'm interested to see where things go. as more and more people get DVRs, that “see what’s on” mentality will be less and less of the market. i’m interested to see where things go.

]]> By: chuck http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2008/04/05/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-147375 chuck Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:09:39 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2008/04/05/the-future-of-television/#comment-147375 i just read an article in the March 2008 issue of The Atlantic today about this very subject. "The Revolution will Be Televised" talks about NBC pulling its content from iTunes with the statistic that NBC was responsible for 40 percent of iTunes video sales, but earned only $15 million from those sales. They realized they were digging their own grave by allowing iTunes to be the provider, and they need to set up their own channels. nbc.com does run ads with its epsiodes. After watching a season's worth of 30 Rock via nbc.com, I have learned that "Exploding Verizon Data Service is Awesome." i just read an article in the March 2008 issue of The Atlantic today about this very subject. “The Revolution will Be Televised” talks about NBC pulling its content from iTunes with the statistic that NBC was responsible for 40 percent of iTunes video sales, but earned only $15 million from those sales. They realized they were digging their own grave by allowing iTunes to be the provider, and they need to set up their own channels.

nbc.com does run ads with its epsiodes. After watching a season’s worth of 30 Rock via nbc.com, I have learned that “Exploding Verizon Data Service is Awesome.”

]]>