Sorry, There's No Way To Save The TV Business
indiaBPOking
The traditional TV industry--cable companies, networks, and
broadcasters--is where the newspaper industry was about five years
ago:
In denial.
There are murmurings on the edges about how longstanding business
models will come under pressure as Internet distribution takes over.
But, so far, the revenue and profits are hanging in there, so the big
TV companies don't really care.
Specifically, the TV industry's attitude is the same as the newspaper
industry's attitude was circa 2002-2003: Stop calling us dinosaurs: We
get digital; We're growing our digital businesses; We're investing in
digital platforms; People still recall ads even when they fast-foward
through them on DVRs; There's no subtitute for TV ads. And
traditional TV isn't going away: Just look at our revenue and profits!
After saying all this same stuff for years, the newspaper industry
figured out the hard way that, eventually, reality intrudes, that you
can't stuff the genie back in the bottle. And over the next 5-10
years, the TV industry will figure this out, too.
Here's the problem in a nutshell:
As with print-based media, Internet-based distribution generates only
a tiny fraction of the revenue and profit that today's incumbent
cable, broadcast, and satellite distribution models do. As Internet-
based distribution gains steam, therefore, most TV industry incumbents
will no longer be able to support their existing cost structures.
Specifically, TV business models for the past half-century, from
broadcast to cable to satellite, have been built on the following
foundation:
* Not much else to do at home that's as simple and fun as TV
* No way to get video content other than via TV
* No options other than TV for advertisers who want to tell video
stories
* No options other than cable--and, more recently, satellite--to
get TV
* Tight choke-points in each market through which all video
content has to flow (cable company, airwaves), which creates enormous
value for the owners of those gates.
And now, slowly but surely, look what's happening:
* Other simple and fun options emerging at home: Internet, video
games, Facebook, IM, DVDs
* New ways to get TV content other than traditional TV companies:
Hulu, YouTube, iTunes, Netflix
* Video-story options for advertisers beginning to emerge: Hulu
shows, for example (But NBC, et al, making a lot less per viewer now
than they do on TV)
* More options for getting video content: telcos, cable cos,
wireless cos (soon)
* Fewer choke points in each market: With an Internet connection
anywhere in the world, you will soon be able to get to almost
anything. And not just to your computer--to your television.
Thus far, the TV industry has reacted to these changes the way most
people would: By trying to port its existing model to the new world
and maintain its hold on power and money. This is why we're getting
so many ridiculous, consumer-unfriendly TV solutions, such as:
* Market-based control over what you can and can't watch (thanks
to contracts with local cable companies),
* No live-streaming of lots of popular video content despite the
fact that this would grow the audience (same reason),
* Time-shifting of popular shows (don't want to cannibalize more
profitable TV audience)
* Hoarding of video libraries that could be easily available,
watched, and monetized online
* Single episode downloads that expire after 24 hours
* $150/month "triple-play" solutions that come larded up with
absurd taxes, fees, and service-charges, most of which go to pay for
crap we don't want.
All these Band-Aid solutions will eventually fail. Why? Because
eventually the cable-satellite-airwave monopoly over TV content in
local markets will be circumvented by simple, global Internet
distribution.
brian roberts worried.jpgYou won't have 5 channels, or 50 channels, or
500 channels. You'll have millions of channels. You'll be able to
watch anything you want, live or taped. You'll be able to watch it
wherever you want--TV, computer, mobile device. You won't have to
sorry about "slinging" video content around or programming your DVR.
You'll just plug a pipe (Internet) into a box (device) and watch.
This is where the future is going. That's obvious. The only question
is how long it takes us to get there--and who gets killed along the
way.
A lot of this content, by the way, won't--and shouldn't--be free. But
you won't have to pay your cable company for the dozens of channels
you won't ever watch just get the ones you do. You may have to
maintain subscriptions with several different content-aggregation
companies (a pain) but this will be a lot better than paying for
things you don't want. And whatever content you do pay for will--and
should--cost a lot less than it does now.
And what will happen to the companies?
The best content creators will do just fine. Video storytelling won't
go away. Compared to the people who produced Battlestar Galactica,
the Sopranos, and West Wing, etc., the folks who post to YouTube
generally suck at it. So great content creators won't have to worry
about them.
The lousy content creators will disappear. No big loss. And no big
change.
The cable companies will become dumb pipes, and they'll get
disintermediated. We won't need Brian Roberts to negotiate a deal
with the Tennis Channel for us (or, rather, to prevent us from getting
the Tennis Channel because of some contract dispute). We'll just go
direct.
The phone companies will remain dumb pipes.
The wireless companies will become dumber pipes.
The competition between the multiple dumb pipes will eventually, we
pray, result in lower prices for consumers for the only thing we will
really need: Ubiquitous high-speed Internet access.
Box and device companies will remain box and device companies. Unless
Apple somehow creates a new global chokepoint via the iPhone.
Networks that produce live news, sports, and entertainment will offer
the content direct to consumers. But they'll no longer get paid big
carriage fees from cable companies.
A few clever online aggregators--YouTube? Hulu? Cable companies?
Netflix?--will create nice video portals and build powerful new
businesses. At these portals, you'll be able to sign up to watch
anything in the world on any device you want. You'll be able choose
among multiple subscription models (monthly, a la carte). You'll also
have a basic "what's on" option in case you just want to watch TV.
When will this happen? Over the next 5-10 years. And it will leave
today's TV industry looking like today's newspaper industry.
And from this TV consumer's perspective, it can't happen soon enough.
Nickname unavailable
and the morons running free t.v. were given a gift by government
digital, t.v., that would allow each and every channel, to have sub
channels, their own mini networks, and what have the idiots done with
this gift, in most cases, nothing. i will not cry when they go belly
up. instead, i will celebrate.
Day Brown
change in the zeitgeist with new ideas that no longer need vast sums of
capital behind them to proliferate; memes are like bacteria.
For instance, the high cost of management is getting more obvious. More
enterprises will be formed on the net by creative genius which then
hires women to run the office and handle the information flow. And then
post the deposits in the right bank accounts.
As for media content, the Greeks didnt have a copywrite office. Yet, the
funding was found to put on the plays, and Sophocles, Euripedes, and the
other artists got to live a comfortable life. Without making lawyers
rich. Imagine: the most innovative culture in all history, and they
didnt have a patent office. How'd they do that?
T. Keating
<indiab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-analysts-begin-to-realize-that-theres-no-way-to-save-television-2009-6
>
>The traditional TV industry--cable companies, networks, and
>broadcasters--is where the newspaper industry was about five years
>ago:
>
>In denial.
snip..
>
>Here's the problem in a nutshell:
>
>As with print-based media, Internet-based distribution generates only
>a tiny fraction of the revenue and profit that today's incumbent
>cable, broadcast, and satellite distribution models do. As Internet-
>based distribution gains steam, therefore, most TV industry incumbents
>will no longer be able to support their existing cost structures.
>
>Specifically, TV business models for the past half-century, from
>broadcast to cable to satellite, have been built on the following
>foundation:
>
> * Not much else to do at home that's as simple and fun as TV
> * No way to get video content other than via TV
> * No options other than TV for advertisers who want to tell video
>stories
> * No options other than cable--and, more recently, satellite--to
>get TV
^^^^^^^^^^^^ wrong..
> * Tight choke-points in each market through which all video
>content has to flow (cable company, airwaves), which creates enormous
>value for the owners of those gates.
>
>And now, slowly but surely, look what's happening:
snip..
I disagree with your "no way to save" premise.
All your new options incur monthly charges in some fashion.
I predict that Over The Air.. (H)DTV will experience a resurgence in
large metro areas. In fact, I'm betting money on it, (building and
installing custom OTA antennas), Why?, after nominal installation
costs, it is totally FREE !!!! No monthly reoccurring costs. (Other
than electricity to run the HDTV receiver. )
With OTA your wallet is free from the Cable and Satellite monkey,
And no more outrageous ISP bills for ultra high speed internet access
and/or bandwidth surcharges.
P.S. Home owners on limited or fixed incomes love this concept.
ATSC, DTV transmissions is far superior to the old NTSC variety.
A relatively lost cost outdoor antenna pulls in most stations
within a radius of 50 miles, for a little bit more installation
cost(antenna amp) that ranges increases to ~65 miles. Ergo.. ~50-70
channels+sub channels of digitial programming for free.
OTA reception offers some material no other Cable or Satellite
provider can legally provide (I.E. copyright/contract/retransmission
restrictions). Access to programming from more than one Designated/
Television Market Area. (Many TM areas overlap, even more so with the
advent of ATSC transmissions). Hint, other than certain Afternoon
and Prime-time shows, network affiliates often carry different
programming material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_market
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_North_America_by_media_market
http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettrack/us_hh_by_dma.asp
OTA, HDTV is far superior to anything the Cable or Sat companies can
offer.. (who often decode and recompress OTA (H)DTV signals in order
to squeeze more of them into their bandwidth limited facilities.)
Lastly, I rarely see a Cable or Sat company offer local secondary
subchannel programming. (cable and sat viewers don't know what they
are missing, local realtime weather radar, sports channels, music
videos, etc.) ,
Me, again!
In addition to Keating's commentary farther down, I felt that BPOking's
quote of that "bluff" piece was full of misleading premature conclusions,
too.
Microsoft is organizing a campaign to de-index as many newspapers as
possible from Google and they might succeed. Not that I am a big fan of
MS, but Google really does get a free ride on everone else's content and
they have a right to protect their economic interests. It may have to be
tested in the courts as an anti-competitive practice, but I would support
newspapers. Besides the major paper phenomenon, it is misleading to think
this is the end of newspapers. In my neighborhood all of the local papers,
which are quite good, are large in number, thick in local content, and
going strong. And, I have posted about this many many times.
And, I've read that this is the general case all over the country: the
local papers are all doing well in most places.
Program material may be diminishing for the big companies but their loss
is broadband gain, and in my household our diminished consumption of
broadcast program material is matched by the increased use of used video
tapes and DVDs, and for news we have always spent more time reading
newspapers, magazines, and books. Much more time.
"indiaBPOking," as usual, is running a propaganda machine based on mostly
scare-mongering. Keating's viewpoint (below) is valid.
///////////////////
Nickname unavailable
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:58:43 -0800 (PST), indiaBPOking
>
> >http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-analysts-begin-to-realiz...
that could be correct, its why i am fuming at free t.v., what idiots
to let this slip thru their fingers, inept, timid,meek, corrupt
management.
> I predict that Over The Air.. (H)DTV will experience a resurgence in
> large metro areas. In fact, I'm betting money on it, (building and
> installing custom OTA antennas), Why?, after nominal installation
> costs, it is totally FREE !!!! No monthly reoccurring costs. (Other
> than electricity to run the HDTV receiver. )
>
except, i live in the 15th largest television market in america, 3.5
million people, yet, there are only 3 mini-networks, ion network, good
qubo channel for kids, but lots of infomercials, and only limited
viewing time. it can be good at times, but the window is small, just a
few hours a day.
the pbs network, three sub channels, but one is all weather. in other
much smaller markets, lets say under 250,000 people, there pbs mini-
netowrk has the same amount of channels.
onlt two other channels have sub channels, one another weather
channel, and one reruns of local political gossip. all other channles
have no sub-channels, and are forcing us into watching what they want,
the corporate crap, and losing viewership.
the last mini-network has 4 sub channles, its the far right religious
trinity network.
so, so far its a flop, and they are still losing viewers.
> With OTA your wallet is free from the Cable and Satellite monkey,
> And no more outrageous ISP bills for ultra high speed internet access
> and/or bandwidth surcharges.
>
correct, but, lots of wasted bandwith, as blodget says, they have
done nothing with digital. they fear the competition to the stale
corporate stuff that they are forcing onto us.
the locals are sitting on 1000's of hours of programming, and its not
generating a nickel for them, stupidity abounds.
here are the major national wide sub channel networks, in most
markets, they are locked out.
here they are, lots of cool stuff, but the first 5 i am drooling
over, then the rest are so, so to me.
http://www.whitesprings.tv/
www.dot2network.com/national/
http://www.this.tv/
http://www.myretrotv.com/
http://www.funimationchannel.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.accuweather.com/
http://www.colourstv.org/site/
http://www.livewellhd.com/index
http://www.nbclocalmedia.com/Flash/
http://www.universalsports.com/
http://www.untamedsportstv.com/
> P.S. Home owners on limited or fixed incomes love this concept.
>
> ATSC, DTV transmissions is far superior to the old NTSC variety.
> A relatively lost cost outdoor antenna pulls in most stations
> within a radius of 50 miles, for a little bit more installation
> cost(antenna amp) that ranges increases to ~65 miles. Ergo.. ~50-70
> channels+sub channels of digitial programming for free.
>
> OTA reception offers some material no other Cable or Satellite
> provider can legally provide (I.E. copyright/contract/retransmission
> restrictions). Access to programming from more than one Designated/
> Television Market Area. (Many TM areas overlap, even more so with the
> advent of ATSC transmissions). Hint, other than certain Afternoon
> and Prime-time shows, network affiliates often carry different
> programming material.
>
T. Keating
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>On Nov 27, 10:00�am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:58:43 -0800 (PST), indiaBPOking
>>
snip..
>
>> I predict that Over The Air.. (H)DTV will experience a resurgence in
>> large metro areas. � In fact, I'm betting money on it, �(building and
>> installing custom OTA antennas), � Why?, �after nominal installation
>> costs, it is totally FREE !!!! � No monthly reoccurring costs. �(Other
>> than electricity to run the HDTV receiver. )
>>
>
> except, i live in the 15th largest television market in america, 3.5
>million people, yet, there are only 3 mini-networks, ion network, good
>qubo channel for kids, but lots of infomercials, and only limited
>viewing time. it can be good at times, but the window is small, just a
>few hours a day.
> the pbs network, three sub channels, but one is all weather. in other
>much smaller markets, lets say under 250,000 people, there pbs mini-
>netowrk has the same amount of channels.
> onlt two other channels have sub channels, one another weather
>channel, and one reruns of local political gossip. all other channles
>have no sub-channels, and are forcing us into watching what they want,
>the corporate crap, and losing viewership.
> the last mini-network has 4 sub channles, its the far right religious
>trinity network.
> so, so far its a flop, and they are still losing viewers.
Get a outdoor UHF/high VHF antenna and then add a decent mast mounted
antenna amp(to help overcome coax and splitter losses).
Antennacraft� HBU22 High-VHF/UHF Antenna
Model: HBU22 | Catalog #: 15-278
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3739595
Point it 225-230 degrees.. (SW) and you should be able to reliably
pickup all(12) DTV channels (+ sub channels) in your area..
>
>
>> � �With OTA your wallet is free from the Cable and Satellite monkey,
>> And no more outrageous ISP bills for ultra high speed internet access
>> and/or bandwidth surcharges. �
>>
>
> correct, but, lots of wasted bandwith, as blodget says, they have
>done nothing with digital. they fear the competition to the stale
>corporate stuff that they are forcing onto us.
> the locals are sitting on 1000's of hours of programming, and its not
>generating a nickel for them, stupidity abounds.
>here are the major national wide sub channel networks, in most
>markets, they are locked out.
TV Content will always be dumbed down to the lowest common
denominator. FOr example, take any newspaper and do a reading level
analysis.
Internet access allows one to customise content for those who wish to
set their minds free.
Nickname unavailable
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:27:54 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable
>
>
> >> OTA, HDTV is far superior to anything the Cable or Sat companies can
> >> offer.. (who often decode and recompress OTA (H)DTV signals in order
> >> to squeeze more of them into their bandwidth limited facilities.)
>
> >> Lastly, I rarely see a Cable or Sat company offer local secondary
> >> subchannel programming. (cable and sat viewers don't know what they
> >> are missing, local realtime weather radar, sports channels, music
> >> videos, etc.) ,
there are 25 total channels in my area, i get them all. and as i
said, its almost nothing. we get no nation wide sub channel networks,
because the corporatist media fears competition.
Me, ...again!
See at the end....
About the only things that is serious enough for me, in terms of
high-brow entertainment, are the heavy-duty mysteries on PBS. But, we've
been buying up DVDs and VHS at thrift stores. Great because you don't have
to put up with commercials and the dumbed-down content.
The dumbed-down content is really meant to passivize, obedientize,
mesmerise, and pasteurize the people (George Orwell's "Animal Farm" can
apply to US culture, too, particularly that part about "all animals are
equal, but some are more equal than others") so they can't think
analytically or critically about the propaganda being fed out. At least
the Russians (back in the controlled press days) learned how to read
between the lines to figure out what was going on.
There are many alternatives: books, chess, reading non-fiction so you
actually learn something useful, and building things, making things with
your hands. Just imagine what people did before computers, internet, iCrap
gadgets, radio/TV, etc. Read your history books and biographies of
important people and thinkers. Improve your brain, increase your
knowledge. Learn a language, learn a musical instrument. Network with real
people, in person, and for real.
Nickname unavailable
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:27:54 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable
>
well, dumbing down your customers works only for so many, and drives
many away. once the dumb down learn there are alternatives, many of
them to will leave. its whats happening to t.v., and news papers. who
would provide content to stupid people who brag they cannot, or will
not read. newspapers did in themselves in. now t.v. is doing the same.
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_markethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...
Nickname unavailable
yep, i watch t.v. much less the last 20 years, and its a good thing.
i will not tune into the news, local, or national, its propaganda.