4 ms·

I am routinely baffled at some of the choices content-holders make regarding not just Hulu, but on-demand availability of their content. I remember when I firs

by bmelton 14y ago

I am routinely baffled at some of the choices content-holders make regarding not just Hulu, but on-demand availability of their content. I remember when I first began watching "Shameless" on Showtime. I had missed pretty much the entire season before somebody recommended it to me. I found it on Verizon's "On-Demand" and watched a couple episodes, loved it, then came back the next day to find out that all the episodes had been pulled off of On Demand for a few months. I can only assume it was pulled to keep from scavenging DVD sales or something like that, but at that time, I hadn't watched enough to build up a love for the show that would have persuaded me to buy a DVD. I work from home, so I will often put TV shows on that I can mindlessly watch while I'm working. This generally excludes shows that require lots of attention, but most prime-time shows are pretty digestible with only a modicum of attention required. All too often, despite having all channels on FIOS, Netflix, Hulu Plus et al, I find that I can't watch the first season of a new show that looked interesting. You should _always_ give away at least the first few episodes so that I can get hooked. I don't have a problem with releasing the episodes the day after, or even a week late... but don't deny me the ability to fall in love with your show by only showing me the past few episodes, unless your show is only into its fifth episode of the first season.

ta12121 14y ago
We consumers might not like what they do, but I'm sure they know how to maximize profits. Why give shows away for free or a pittance, when people who care are willing to pay dollars per episode? I'm sure they're happy to give away quite a few users to whom an episode is worth a dime or a quarter in online ads, in exchange for getting to keep motivated viewers willing to buy the DVDs at $3 an episode.
- bmelton 14y ago
  I understand and appreciate their right to do whatever they want to with it, but with perhaps very few exceptions, I can't imagine how you can justify not giving away the first few episodes as a loss-leader for people to actually get hooked on something. If I can't see the first episode, the chances of me 'jumping-on' are effectively nil, and I'm certainly not going to pay for something I don't love and haven't seen. Perhaps I'm not the average user, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that. And again, it's not like I don't respect their rights to do whatever the hell they want, it just doesn't make sense to me. Ultimately, there's not a TV show or movie that I can't live without seeing, but not ever letting me see your show isn't a way to maximize profits, at least from me.
  - Jaigus 14y ago
    I've seen showtime do the same thing with Spartacus and Dexter. They've both been on and off netflix multiple times, yet showtime did provide the season premiere for both of these series free of charge on their site. This practice definitely makes good sense, and I'm sure it will start catching on.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
I share your amazement but at Teller (of Penn & Teller) said in one of his interviews, "People only believe what they are prepared to believe." Over the years I've discovered that while this makes a lot of magic tricks possible, it also profoundly affects how people react to environmental changes. Whether its executives at a large content conglomerate debating the economics of content or parents at a school debating the validity of the scientific method, if someone is given a choice of what to believe, and one choice would violate some other deeply held belief, they always choose to believe the explanation that doesn't challenge the status quo. Regardless of how ridiculous it might seem to a neutral third party observer. This mis-feature in the human brain seems to cause a lot of trouble. The deeply held belief that I have heard expressed by many different big content holders is that the 'true value' of a work can only realized by keeping absolute control over the use of that work. Thus they work to maintain absolute control by technology, by regulation, and by the force of law.
- sparky 14y ago
  Our tendency to minimize cognitive dissonance has a lot of terrible consequences, but the Wikipedia article points out a few ways besides magic tricks that we can exploit it for good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Applications_of_cognitive_dissonance_research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Applicatio...

by bmelton 14y ago

ta12121 14y ago

We consumers might not like what they do, but I'm sure they know how to maximize profits. Why give shows away for free or a pittance, when people who care are willing to pay dollars per episode? I'm sure they're happy to give away quite a few users to whom an episode is worth a dime or a quarter in online ads, in exchange for getting to keep motivated viewers willing to buy the DVDs at $3 an episode.

bmelton 14y ago
I understand and appreciate their right to do whatever they want to with it, but with perhaps very few exceptions, I can't imagine how you can justify not giving away the first few episodes as a loss-leader for people to actually get hooked on something. If I can't see the first episode, the chances of me 'jumping-on' are effectively nil, and I'm certainly not going to pay for something I don't love and haven't seen. Perhaps I'm not the average user, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that. And again, it's not like I don't respect their rights to do whatever the hell they want, it just doesn't make sense to me. Ultimately, there's not a TV show or movie that I can't live without seeing, but not ever letting me see your show isn't a way to maximize profits, at least from me.
- Jaigus 14y ago
  I've seen showtime do the same thing with Spartacus and Dexter. They've both been on and off netflix multiple times, yet showtime did provide the season premiere for both of these series free of charge on their site. This practice definitely makes good sense, and I'm sure it will start catching on.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

I share your amazement but at Teller (of Penn & Teller) said in one of his interviews, "People only believe what they are prepared to believe." Over the years I've discovered that while this makes a lot of magic tricks possible, it also profoundly affects how people react to environmental changes. Whether its executives at a large content conglomerate debating the economics of content or parents at a school debating the validity of the scientific method, if someone is given a choice of what to believe, and one choice would violate some other deeply held belief, they always choose to believe the explanation that doesn't challenge the status quo. Regardless of how ridiculous it might seem to a neutral third party observer. This mis-feature in the human brain seems to cause a lot of trouble. The deeply held belief that I have heard expressed by many different big content holders is that the 'true value' of a work can only realized by keeping absolute control over the use of that work. Thus they work to maintain absolute control by technology, by regulation, and by the force of law.

sparky 14y ago
Our tendency to minimize cognitive dissonance has a lot of terrible consequences, but the Wikipedia article points out a few ways besides magic tricks that we can exploit it for good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Applications_of_cognitive_dissonance_research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Applicatio...