RSS
Twitter
TV Broadcasters One Step Closer... But Still Missing The Value Of The Net
from the it's-a-step...-but... dept
The buzz today is that UPN and Google are doing something worth noting in offering up Chris Rock's new TV show for streamed viewing online. Honestly, this isn't all that different than what others have done before them. However, it's still getting the model wrong. It's still looking at the web as a broadcast medium, rather than a communications one. The show is only available to be streamed. You can't take it with you. You can't pass it on to others. You can't move it to another device to watch. You're stuck watching it the way it's offered -- and not so well at that. In attempting to watch it, it seems to be taking an incredibly long time to download, so I'm getting plenty of stops and buffering, which is exactly the impression that neither Google nor UPN should want to be giving. They could have set it up as a BitTorrent (or equivalent) download, saving their own bandwidth issues and letting people actually view the episode how they wanted to. That would generate real excitement and real interest. Instead, this just seems like a cheap marketing stunt that doesn't work very well.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Oh goodie
A new stream ripper project I can work on.. What a treat, the SHOUTcast one is done.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Rock's TV Stream
I just watched the new Chris Rock show on Google Video and it looked great. It started as soon as I went to the site and didn't stop or slow until the show was over. I'm only working on cheap dsl too. I don't know what you're talking about, but my experience was a good one. I enjoyed the show, and don't care too much about being able to watch on a different medium either. If I had the option of downloading the file, and sending it to friends and all that, I'd still just watch it the way I just did: streamed.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
TV Broadcasters
TV programs cost money to produce, they are sponsored by commercials for the most part. When a TV network purchases a series it purchases each of them for a finite number of runs.
The people that produced it, own it, as it should be. The internet is still a free-for-all.
I don't see anyone complaining that HBO isn't going to stream "The Sopranos" and you pay dearly for that.
News and public affairs should be streamed because its part of a TV station's license to serve the public, but that is soemthing they produce themselves and it has an expiration date.
If quality TV programming is streamed or can be recorded, how can the producers possibly sell their programs overseas?
Mike
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
broadcast vs. communications
"However, it's still getting the model wrong. It's still looking at the web as a broadcast medium, rather than a communications one."
Actually, I'd say it's a flexible medium, that can be used in a variety of different ways. If someone chooses to broadcast over the net, more power to them. If I don't want to watch it, I vote with my feet -- but if they find an audience that way, where's the harm?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: broadcast vs. communications
The point is they're making this out to be a big deal, and they're barely taking advantage of what the internet is good for. This isn't a big deal at all. It's just the same old thinking. That's why it's disappointing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: TV Broadcasters
TV programs cost money to produce, they are sponsored by commercials for the most part.
So why not offer the program as a download with the commercials included. That way you get a lot more people watching those commercials.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: TV Broadcasters
"If quality TV programming is streamed or can be recorded, how can the producers possibly sell their programs overseas? "
All quality tv programming is already widely distributed on the internet by millions of people via p2p, and I don't see producers having any problems selling their programs overseas. If anything its making them more money because it, in marketing terms, "generates buzz".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: TV Broadcasters
Being able to download it and watch it whenever you want to would be great. Some shows though do not want you to be able to download it free. They want to sell you each season on DVD.
Good point though about adding those comerials along with the download.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: TV Broadcasters
Because Commercials are geographically limited whilst the internet is global.
How many of you want to watch a commercial about my local car dealer? Or look at it from the business's point of view...would you pay for a commercial where more than 90% of people viewing your commercial are outside your market area?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: TV Broadcasters
Of course a lot of advertisers are NOT local. So this would actually be a second chance to generate revenue by selling advertising (besides, I imagine the local advertising is often sold by the station, not the network). Include the opportunities new technology provides of having links to purchase, and maybe even being able to click on items IN the show -- see a nice watch you just have to have, click on it and it takes you to buy it. Truly entertaining home shopping.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: TV Broadcasters
TV programs cost money to produce, they are sponsored by commercials for the most part.
Or, instead of a station identifying "bug" in the bottom right hand corner, a picture of a pair of Levi's jeans, or the AMD logo, or any other product sold internationally...or one in the bottom right and another in the bottom left...mini-commercials that pay for the production, are on the screen for far longer than a 30 second spot, can't be skipped, and reach a much larger market (international). This and a torrent based distribution channel would more than likely generate more income for both the producers and the advertisers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: TV Broadcasters
But your analogy is flawed. You've chosen a pay-to-watch show to illustrate your point, and that's missing the point. Let's look at the business model for my local UPN station.
Sure, it costs money to for the network to create a show. It costs money for the local affiliate to broadcast that show. Of course, they are using public airwaves and there are no barriers to entry for a UPN show (like buying cable/DirecTV or signing up for the additional HBO programming). This this means they are giving away a product in exchange for advertising revenue. The people buying commercials hope the product (TV show) is good enough to have eyeballs watch the show and the commercials.
Again, since there are no barriers, then the only thing limiting viewing area is signal strength. The local affiliate pays for each megawatt and pays for the rights to broadcast. If they remove these two limitations by re-distributing the TV feed via the Internet then they can reach a wider audience at the same cost and (maybe) also be able to charge more in ad fees. This seems like a win-win situation to me.
And yes, I've considered the results of having 37 different versions of the same show from 37 different stations. I decided to ignore that problem.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment