4 ms·
This is quite simply nonsense. Will the cost of channels rise for some of the reasons he says, sure. But one of three things will happen: a) total spend/inve
by richardjordan 14y ago
This is quite simply nonsense.
Will the cost of channels rise for some of the reasons he says, sure. But one of three things will happen:
a) total spend/investment (in aggregate of time and surplus attention arbitraged to ads) across ALL channels will rise - this will hit us all in the pockets, but also raise the overall budget for content production... this doesn't lead to his conclusions.
b) total spend and therefore the same amount will be available as is available now for content
c) total spend will go down. This might superficially appear to support his conclusions but it doesn't if you think about it. If ESPN rises but other things fall in price and I lose a few things I virtually never watch, and my overall bill is lower - which it will be on average if the total spend is down - then I don't CARE that ESPN is $20 per month instead of $5.
What will happen is called a market!
We'll have a marketplace for content. There will be a certain amount that people are prepared to spend on content, and how much surplus attention they're prepared to pay for ads which will subsidize content. The allocation of these resources will be made more efficient by a more efficient market dynamic. We'll invest more in things we value, less in things we don't. So the BBC and NFL Network will make money out of me for Dr. Who and the football season. But I'll no longer be squandering monthly bills in shit I never watch.
Plus as content moves to apps on TV the playing field is leveled for independent producers to rise up and the barriers to entry will be much lower than they are today for a show to garner - or KEEP - an audience and revenue stream large enough to sustain it.
Imagine if Firefly had been able to say: Fox has bailed on us, but if we can get a million of you to pay just $20 a year we can keep it on the air and send you a copy of the season on DVD after it's over... or something to that effect.
This article is garbage. It's amazing how much ink old media dedicates - even on their new media sites - to trying to argue against the inevitable changes ahead. Perversely it also highlights why old media doesn't have some natural right to survive and have us all protect it against this onslaught. Their content is often mediocre, like this. (And yes I know the Atlantic has a ton of great content, that's not the point.)
- richardjordan 14y agoThe real problem that is skewing his thinking, that he's misdiagnosing IMHO is content fragmentation - huge numbers of options necessarily diluting spend/quality. But that's a trend the same networks, cable companies and content producers crying foul today have initiated and continued. They made this bed. Lie in it and quit complaining.
- jtoeman 14y agowhile i agree the article is fairly off the mark, i also do not agree with your assumption that a traditional market will emerge. producing the pilot of Game of Thrones cost $10M, before they knew it would be a hit. you can't make those gambles in an efficient market - ever. in the efficient market scenario, we'll end up with a lot more reality TV and mediocre sitcoms/drama. the reality check is - the current system ain't so bad, and while I want "independent content" as much as you, I think we have a lot more of it in the current system than you outline... Workaholics? Portlandia? etc.
- ahupp 14y agoAvatar cost $200-300m dollars to produce and promote, all before they knew it was going to be a hit. $10m for a TV show is of course beyond the abilities of most independents, but there's no reason to believe that only small independents would be players in a new TV market.
- edanm 14y ago"producing the pilot of Game of Thrones cost $10M, before they knew it would be a hit. you can't make those gambles in an efficient market - ever" Why is that? Isn't it just like any other kind of investment that regularly gets made in an efficient market?
- richardjordan 14y agoRight. Plenty of market mechanisms exist for gauging risk, investing on it, and being rewarded for it. People invest in most things without being a bit. We're on a forum hosted by an institution whose very raison d'etre is investing in things before they know they'll be a hit.
- jtoeman 14y agobut neither of you are taking the existing industry into account. you just want them to lay over and die and do it your way. they make FIVE HUNDRED BILLION dollars a year, and you guys think they should just change because you want them to. market testing in TV and movies is exactly what produces mediocre crap. if you'd like to spend some more time getting up to speed on how the industry works before deciding it sucks, i'm happy to oblige.