6 ms·

Same theme over and over and it's frustrating: technology is fully ready to support streaming and on demand programming, but the content providers don't like li

by jsherry 15y ago

Same theme over and over and it's frustrating: technology is fully ready to support streaming and on demand programming, but the content providers don't like licensing the content because it cannibalizes their TV product. And who can blame them really? They're the only show in town and they should cash in via whatever method best suits them. The only real chance for things like Hulu and Netflix to succeed no-holds-barred, carrying everybody's content, is for them to carry their own content. Netflix is starting to do this and finally some competition in the form of fresh content is beginning to occur. Now if this behavior goes mainstream, people may stop watching traditional television in lieu of Netflix not only because they like the convenience but also prefer the programming. Then we have real incentive for the networks to get their stuff back on streaming platforms because it will no longer be a question of cannibalism, but one of losing viewersip altogether. This makes sense in my head - hopefully it does too here ;-)

spydertennis 15y ago
One thought I had was that Hulu/Netflix should buy the rights to cancelled shows that have popular followings and pay to have new seasons made. Obviously this is fraught with potential problems (people are committed to other projects) but it could be cool.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  They would have to buy those rights from TV studios, who would for obviously reasons be loathe to part with them. Even producing their own shows is problematic, as the studios can blackball any actors/writers/directors/production people who work with them. The television and film industry is a tight-knit group, and I can easily see them circling the wagons in order to protect their distribution monopoly.
  - chopsueyar 15y ago
    Isn't that what Canada is for?
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      It's the same industry and same people. Also, our homebrew shows are mostly crap. Except Trailer Park Boys.
- samirg 15y ago
  The other obvious issue is that if the show was cancelled by the studio, what makes you think it would be profitable to pay for and produce new shows for distribution across a smaller network (Netflix vs. sum of cable/satellite distribution, which is the case for most major studios)? I suspect FNL/DirecTV may be a counter-argument here, although I don't know the specific economics of that agreement.
  - lucasjung 15y ago
    TV networks often cancel profitable shows because they aren't profitable enough. There are enormous opportunity costs involved in allocating a network time slot to a show: you only get 24 hours in a day, and only a few of those are prime-time. If a prime-time show isn't making big bucks, you cancel it and try another one, and you keep doing that until you find a show that makes you say, "Hmm...if I cancel this, there's a good chance I won't be able to do better." Television networks, like big movie studios, are in the business of producing lots of shows, hoping for the occasional big hit. If you're running a streaming service, the opportunity costs of a small-viewership show are much less. As long as you're making some money, there's no reason to stop. Because streaming services do not have to allocate broadcast time slots as a scare commodity, they can go with an entirely different model: many more shows, each targeted at a smaller but more passionate audience.
    - chopsueyar 15y ago
      Profound. Upvote.
- ssharp 15y ago
  You'd have to pick up shows where the fan base was extremely passionate but the show just couldn't find a mass audience. Those types of shows don't come around that often. With all the cable companies now interested in scripted television, the ability for good shows to make it to a home that will support it through growth is much higher. Besides the inventory issue, I see huge issues with Hulu and Netflix getting into the production business. Their core business is distribution, not programming and production.
  - sukuriant 15y ago
    Stargate.
    - jeffool 15y ago
      And shows like Arrested Development, Firefly, and Jericho. Maybe not those shows in particular given the amount of time that's passed, but, the next time it happens.
      - nitrogen 15y ago
        I think Kings would be an excellent candidate for this approach, apart from the $x million per episode production costs... I watched all the episodes on Hulu, why not finish the show on Hulu?
        ssharp 15y ago
        Apart from the entire reason why Hulu wouldn't get into this business, why not? If you approach it that way, it's more of a fantasy than a reality. I'm not seeing a compelling reason why Hulu/Netflix would be able to produce million dollar+ episodes and make money off of them.
        jeffool 15y ago
        I'm not arguing for Kings mind you, but I will say that it seems all publishers want to become content owners. And if the current content owners don't want to run the site, I find it difficult to imagine they're going to stay with it forever. The roles of creators and broadcasters are blurring. Not because of a squeezing from CEOs either to turn more a profit, but the necessity of the Internet. If I owned Crackle, Rev3, YT, Netflix, or Hulu? You can bet I'd be looking to pick up properties with a built-in following.
- smackfu 15y ago
  Another consideration is that Netflix uses an HBO model, not a broadcast TV model. So a show is only worth however many new subscriptions it drives. Existing subscribers who watch the show are worthless, unless it prevents them from cancelling.
- vaksel 15y ago
  pretty sure Netflix is already planning to do just that

by jsherry 15y ago

spydertennis 15y ago

One thought I had was that Hulu/Netflix should buy the rights to cancelled shows that have popular followings and pay to have new seasons made. Obviously this is fraught with potential problems (people are committed to other projects) but it could be cool.

redthrowaway 15y ago
They would have to buy those rights from TV studios, who would for obviously reasons be loathe to part with them. Even producing their own shows is problematic, as the studios can blackball any actors/writers/directors/production people who work with them. The television and film industry is a tight-knit group, and I can easily see them circling the wagons in order to protect their distribution monopoly.
- chopsueyar 15y ago
  Isn't that what Canada is for?
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    It's the same industry and same people. Also, our homebrew shows are mostly crap. Except Trailer Park Boys.
samirg 15y ago
The other obvious issue is that if the show was cancelled by the studio, what makes you think it would be profitable to pay for and produce new shows for distribution across a smaller network (Netflix vs. sum of cable/satellite distribution, which is the case for most major studios)? I suspect FNL/DirecTV may be a counter-argument here, although I don't know the specific economics of that agreement.
- lucasjung 15y ago
  TV networks often cancel profitable shows because they aren't profitable enough. There are enormous opportunity costs involved in allocating a network time slot to a show: you only get 24 hours in a day, and only a few of those are prime-time. If a prime-time show isn't making big bucks, you cancel it and try another one, and you keep doing that until you find a show that makes you say, "Hmm...if I cancel this, there's a good chance I won't be able to do better." Television networks, like big movie studios, are in the business of producing lots of shows, hoping for the occasional big hit. If you're running a streaming service, the opportunity costs of a small-viewership show are much less. As long as you're making some money, there's no reason to stop. Because streaming services do not have to allocate broadcast time slots as a scare commodity, they can go with an entirely different model: many more shows, each targeted at a smaller but more passionate audience.
  - chopsueyar 15y ago
    Profound. Upvote.
ssharp 15y ago
You'd have to pick up shows where the fan base was extremely passionate but the show just couldn't find a mass audience. Those types of shows don't come around that often. With all the cable companies now interested in scripted television, the ability for good shows to make it to a home that will support it through growth is much higher. Besides the inventory issue, I see huge issues with Hulu and Netflix getting into the production business. Their core business is distribution, not programming and production.
- sukuriant 15y ago
  Stargate.
  - jeffool 15y ago
    And shows like Arrested Development, Firefly, and Jericho. Maybe not those shows in particular given the amount of time that's passed, but, the next time it happens.
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      I think Kings would be an excellent candidate for this approach, apart from the $x million per episode production costs... I watched all the episodes on Hulu, why not finish the show on Hulu?
      - ssharp 15y ago
        Apart from the entire reason why Hulu wouldn't get into this business, why not? If you approach it that way, it's more of a fantasy than a reality. I'm not seeing a compelling reason why Hulu/Netflix would be able to produce million dollar+ episodes and make money off of them.
        jeffool 15y ago
        I'm not arguing for Kings mind you, but I will say that it seems all publishers want to become content owners. And if the current content owners don't want to run the site, I find it difficult to imagine they're going to stay with it forever. The roles of creators and broadcasters are blurring. Not because of a squeezing from CEOs either to turn more a profit, but the necessity of the Internet. If I owned Crackle, Rev3, YT, Netflix, or Hulu? You can bet I'd be looking to pick up properties with a built-in following.
smackfu 15y ago
Another consideration is that Netflix uses an HBO model, not a broadcast TV model. So a show is only worth however many new subscriptions it drives. Existing subscribers who watch the show are worthless, unless it prevents them from cancelling.
vaksel 15y ago
pretty sure Netflix is already planning to do just that