The beginning of the end for prime-time TV?

[Dan Euritt]

from http://www.mediapost.com:

"In a surprising move designed to bring in new advertising revenues, The Walt Disney Co. has said it plans to make TV shows like "Desperate Housewives" and "Lost" available for free over the Internet. Episodes streamed over the Web can be paused, fast-forwarded, or rewound, and will contain commercial breaks viewers won't be able to skip. Disney's move marks the first time a major TV network owner has made original programming available on the Internet for free. Episodes of the shows being offered will become available the morning after they air on TV. Ten advertisers, including Ford Motor Co. Procter & Gamble and Unilever, have already signed up for the initiative. CBS recently showed--with great success--the NCAA Basketball tournament over the Web for free via ad-supported live streaming video. These kinds of deals will only hasten consumers' transition away from network and cable to broadband TV. Other, similar deals for hit shows are sure to follow; this marks the beginning of the end for prime-time TV." - http://publications.mediapost.com/in...19682&p=262668

[Heath McKnight]

I've read that iTunes has actually DRIVEN people to watch the shows. For instance, you miss an episode, download it from iTunes and no sweat, you're caught up.

Too bad INVASION isn't on yet.

hwm

[Brent Marks]

How can...WE make money on this new idea/concept?


B

[Heath McKnight]

I think we'll be able to via iTunes, but a new model may emerge.

heath

[Dan Euritt]

the problem with itunes is that it requires downloading software in order to view the content, which really cripples the market penetration of the format... i saw some numbers that showed only about 1% of the people on the 'net downloaded podcasts on a regular basis(??).

plus, there are currently about one billion computers hooked up to the 'net worldwide, vs. a couple of million(??) video ipods, if that, so you can see why the broadcast networks are putting streaming content on the 'net that plays on computers instead of ipods... there are also issues with drm on video ipods that is preventing hollywood from embracing the format.

you can make money off of this stuff in a couple of ways:
1) as a production house, you can write scripts, shoot, edit, and encode the web commercials.
2) as a wedding or event videographer, you should be offering options to put the content on the 'net, for people who weren't there to see it live... that takes advantage of the momentum that the streaming video format continues to gain.
3) create niche websites, where people go to watch the content, and you get paid via advertising... i have made comments to people on this forum about doing that, because they are currently shooting things like dog agility, skateboarding, hunting shows, etc., that all have a niche market interest... unfortunately it requires a lot of work if you've never done it before, and you have to be really forward thinking in how you look at current trends... you can monitize that content right now with google adsense and yahoo publisher network, which is how a lot of the video sharing sites are doing it.

your goal is to break out of the dvd-only mentality, and realize that in today's world, it's all about delivery formats... eyeballs are leaving tv for the internet big time, and you have to follow that trend, even if the end goal isn't clear at this point.

[Charles Penn]

Dan, this is sweet music to my ears!!

I've got a product that is perfect for my target market but I lack THE most important element to get my product to them -- a vehicle, a conduit. There are so many obstacles to getting meaningful TV content on the air -- particularly if you're not shooting for the lowest common denominator.

Any vehicle that comes available that helps me get my stuff to people starving for edification, for positive images, I enthusiastically welcome. My hope is that people will have the technical access to it.

Chuck

[Zack Birlew]

What if they could make some new shows internet-only, such as some of the few supposedly unmarketable reality TV shows or documentary series? What about TV shows that weren't too popular on TV, like Carnivale or Project Greenlight? Neat stuff, won't replace TV, but neat addition as a media outlet. =)

[Mike Tesh]

I think eventually all of this is goiong to lead to better TV. Cable boxes and computers will turn into the same thing and people will program their remotes so that when they hit the channel up and channel down buttons it will take them to different web addresses. Each address it's own streaming channel. With a push of a button you can pull up that webchannels backlog of tv shows to watch when you want (commericials included). Hit another button and start discussing the show with other viewers on the shows messageboard.

We'll go from 150 channels of mostly garbage with today's TV, to thousands of channels from all the around the world. Some from big corporations like ABC and others from someones basement in Ohio. People will program their remotes for only the channles they want, which means content will get better to compete for peoples attention even more.

I think this will also be a good platform for long episodic shows that carry over from one week to the next. Alot of those shows didn't do so well on TV because people didn't catch the first few episodes or missed one of two somewhere in the middle and lost their place. But people have been discovering those shows again on DVD and falling in love with them. Unfortunately sometimes after the show has already been cancelled.

[J. Stephen McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mike Tesh

I think eventually all of this is goiong to lead to better TV. Cable boxes and computers will turn into the same thing and people will program their remotes so that when they hit the channel up and channel down buttons it will take them to different web addresses. Each address it's own streaming channel. With a push of a button you can pull up that webchannels backlog of tv shows to watch when you want (commericials included). Hit another button and start discussing the show with other viewers on the shows messageboard.

We'll go from 150 channels of mostly garbage with today's TV, to thousands of channels from all the around the world. Some from big corporations like ABC and others from someones basement in Ohio. People will program their remotes for only the channles they want, which means content will get better to compete for peoples attention even more.

I think this will also be a good platform for long episodic shows that carry over from one week to the next. Alot of those shows didn't do so well on TV because people didn't catch the first few episodes or missed one of two somewhere in the middle and lost their place. But people have been discovering those shows again on DVD and falling in love with them. Unfortunately sometimes after the show has already been cancelled.

Mike, I think you've called things about right here. The networks will very likely jump on the TV/Web interface themselves, to hang onto this new segment of viewers. The easier and quicker they make the shift to be, across from the TV to the Web, the more millions of viewers will adopt it. The limited practice of incorporating Web-access into certain models of TV sets, could be expanded by this. I've always anticipated that world-wide access to local TV channels would be implemented. You can listen to radio stations and read newspapers from everywhere on the Web, so why not TV stations?

Another development along these lines might be that cable companies which offer broadband access, could remove many of the barriers and complications between the tuning of broadcast and Web-replay channels. Of course, the cable companies have begun to establish their own version of this, through their digital DVRs, by allowing some programs to be replayed in an "On Demand" system. The networks may get together with the big cable and satellite companies and make a large selection of primetime replay shows available in this way, shortcutting the Internet version that's being discussed here. In fact, this new Web-based service may be like a beesting to the networks, waking them up and prompting an expanded partnership with cable/satellite companies. This could end up becoming their own, parallel internet. Viewer discussion forums would become a regular part of it, right? You could enter messages during and right after viewing, that would go directly to the producers. They'd have to pay attention to the comments, to stay on top of how their work was registering with the audience. Instead of statistics that were filtered through viewer polling services, they'd get feedback directly from real people.

But, any program delivery that required me to sit with the Mute button pushed for 3-4 minutes, several times during each show, while the commercials played out, will not be used much at my place. The great thing about my dual-tuner HD DVR, is that I NEVER have to wait for commercials to end. However, I did miss this week's critical chapter of "The West Wing" and I would watch and listen to all the commercials, if I could get a re-run of it.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Disney CEO Bob Iger is obviously keeping an eye on this phenomenon...

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/060412/media...iger.html?.v=1

"I remain rather sobered by the experience that the music industry had," Iger said. "The bottom line is that they were not in tune with that their customers wanted and what the world was demanding of them. And I think it hurt them significantly."

[Mike Oveson]

Originally Posted by Mike Tesh

We'll go from 150 channels of mostly garbage with today's TV, to thousands of channels from all the around the world. Some from big corporations like ABC and others from someones basement in Ohio. People will program their remotes for only the channles they want, which means content will get better to compete for peoples attention even more.

But will that really move us forward? I'm all for technology and progress, but going from 150 channels of mostly garbage to thousands of channels of mostly garbage doesn't raelly seem like progress to me. It's the same phenomenon that happened with standard TV. We went from a handful of channels from 'the Networks' and people were disappointed with what was on. Then cable and satellite came along, and people are STILL disappointed with what is on. I don't think that this proliferation of content will make ANY of it better. But at least there will be the choice. I do see how this can be a useful tool for many uses, but I have serious doubts that it will raise the quality of content across the board.

In a way you see this with the current trends of "news" blogs. There has been an explosion of web-reporters who spout the "news" and everything that the mainstream media "won't" tell you. Does this make this "news" any more credible than the mainstream media? Not at all. In some cases less so. While it does have it's useful purposes, it can also be a tool of misinformation and folly.

[Paul Leung]

Originally Posted by Mike Oveson

But will that really move us forward? I'm all for technology and progress, but going from 150 channels of mostly garbage to thousands of channels of mostly garbage doesn't raelly seem like progress to me. It's the same phenomenon that happened with standard TV. We went from a handful of channels from 'the Networks' and people were disappointed with what was on. Then cable and satellite came along, and people are STILL disappointed with what is on. I don't think that this proliferation of content will make ANY of it better. But at least there will be the choice. I do see how this can be a useful tool for many uses, but I have serious doubts that it will raise the quality of content across the board.

In a way you see this with the current trends of "news" blogs. There has been an explosion of web-reporters who spout the "news" and everything that the mainstream media "won't" tell you. Does this make this "news" any more credible than the mainstream media? Not at all. In some cases less so. While it does have it's useful purposes, it can also be a tool of misinformation and folly.

You are absolutely right!

[Mike Tesh]

I agree with you Mike. But at the very least niche content will have easier access. For instance I like watching Apple keynote addresses. If only they aired them on TV. But that's never going to happen, so the best I can ever hope to get is broadcast quality over the net and some new form of easy access to it from the comfort of my couch.

But I agree that no matter how many or how few channels, there will always be more garbage then quality stuff out there.

[Mike Oveson]

Originally Posted by Mike Tesh

I agree with you Mike. But at the very least niche content will have easier access.

And on that note I couldn't be happier. There is a lot of content out there that never gets a chance. Hopefully the Internet will help to 'democratize' content, to a degree at least. The only problem (and it exists in the current broadcast world as well) is advertising. How do you get people to find your content? I hope that many niche programs do crop up and become successful. It's just a matter of getting the right people to that content.

[Boyd Ostroff]

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/060413/media_newscorp.html?.v=2

News Corp.'s Fox network has signed a six-year agreement with its 187 affiliated stations that will let it show reruns of its television programs on the Internet, the Wall Street Journal reported on its Web site on Thursday.

It seems to me that the big losers in this transition will be the local TV outlets. Fewer and fewer people are watching over-the-air TV broadcasts already, and the internet should take away even more market share. About the only unique thing the local stations offer is news, but do we really need 4 stations chasing ambulances around town and showing us live doppler radar?