The point was people could watch at their desks for free last year. The streaming was free. But, this year they have to pay. Where's the added benefit? Is the stream more consisent? Do you get inside access? etc.
But the question in the article is, how many more eyeballs would be on in the middle of the day if the streaming was free? And would that offset the revenue from the app?
The additional follow-up, but unasked, question should be, even if they are increasing their revenue, how does the choice to charge effect the relationship with the fans?
I'm confused. Are you saying CBS/NCAA should/are adding ads to the streaming app. I think the point of the article is, if you simply stream the existing live feed, then the users will be seeing the ads already purchased. If not for backwards tracking methods, those streaming viewers would only increase the numbers for the tournament.
I also understand the problem with local ads being sold to local affiliates. But, why can't the stream interject local ads based on IP adress? Even if IP addresses aren't perfect, it would be better than nothing. Or in the alternative, sell those unaffiliated ads separately.
Instead of focusing on what the responses will be here - why not do what you can to affect this? I just sent comments to my two Senators. This isn't exactly the biggest issue on most American's minds, so if the Techdirt community made its views know to their respective representatives, we could actually make a difference.
One of the the most consistent themes of Techdirt is that government-backed monopolies for legacy business models should be done away with. MPAA, RIAA, etc. should be brought into the future, instead of using laws to maintain their obsolete business models. The market has spoken and the old ways of doing business are no more.
Public broadcasting has more in common with the legacy media groups than is being highlighted here. The successful enterprises, like Sesame Street, will have no trouble surviving any government cuts. While those properties that fail in the marketplace will no longer be produced. This may be disheartening to those who think America is being "dumbed down," but it is entirely consistent with the Techdirtian view of economics.
It seems to me hypocritical to support the use of the power of the federal government to confiscate money from Americans to fund television and radio programs that cannot survive the free markets. Techdirt is constantly talking about alternative business/funding models for content creation - surely these highly prized Public Broadcasting properties can find sponsorship through one of these models. If not, I don't think they will be missed, since no one will be engaging with them anyway.
I think Matt is the first to really hit this on the head: it is not hypocrisy or even confusing at all. Conservatives/Republicans dislike NPR because of a perceived liberal bias and don't want tax dollars going to fund it. NASCAR is not a political organization and does not make political comments through its official capacity – unless patriotism and the like is considered political.
Furthermore, as is mentioned above, DoD is not "funding" NASCAR anymore than Pepsi is funding NBC. I must echo the disappointment in Mike that others have said; how frequently do we discuss on this site the difference between posters and site owners? DoD is using the forum of a NASCAR car sponsorship to reach potential recruits (and very effectively as has been shown above). CPB, PBS, NPR on the other hand are analogous to the forum itself, which is funded directly by tax payer dollars.
If Mike has a problem with encouraging military recruiting, he can feel free to espouse that, but it is not hypocritical for critics of NPR to stand behind funding of (successful) military recruitment advertising, while concurrently seeking to remove funding for political rhetoric.
Whoever "wedbush" and Michael Pacther are, Redbox would not be benefited by listening to their advice:
"On Redbox's Blu-ray woes on the quarter, Pachter offered up a solution: "Those selecting Blu-ray should be shown only Blu-ray titles, and those selecting standard definition should be shown only standard definition." Currently, Redbox lets users browse Blu-ray and DVD titles at the same time."
This "analyst" thinks the solution to sales problem is limiting customer choice? He doesn't think customers would realize that they are seeing less/different titles when they choose Blu-ray? The current system is the best for the customers, they get to see all of the choices available, and then they can choose if they want to pay the extra 50¢ a day for the Blu-ray option. Rebox also benefits because they can start getting metrics on what types of titles people are willing to pay the Blu-ray premium for; something the studios might find interesting as well.
Or another option is for the myopic studios to not charge more for Blu-Ray, which would likely result in a higher uptake for that underwhelming technology.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by johaus.