13 ms·
The international distribution market is the problem. Let's say I'm a network and I come up with a show named _Lost_. I broadcast it on my network in the US, an
by JimmyL 17y ago
The international distribution market is the problem. Let's say I'm a network and I come up with a show named _Lost_. I broadcast it on my network in the US, and it's pretty profitable and popular. I see people are pirating it, so I put it on Hulu and regain some of my previously-lost market share.
Now, a year late a network in England wants to show it. I can then sell them the rights to an audience that has never been formally exposed to it - sure, some have pirated the episodes, but not many. I can get a bunch of money for this. If, however, those British viewers could have seen it on Hulu as it was coming out in real-time, a whole lot more of them would have been exposed to the show, and hence I'd command a much lower price for licensing _Lost_ to that British network.
Think of it from a network perspective (and remembering McLuhan's notion that the purpose of TV shows is to sell advertising, and that the content is just a way to make you look at it). If you let international viewers on Hulu you'll lose the money I mentioned above, but in addition you'll have trouble selling advertising on it, since domestic advertisers don't care about someone in Canada seeing their ads (and the viewership would be small enough that no one would buy a contract just for those ads). If you don't let internationals see it, you'll preserve your resale price, and make it easier to sell ads both on your electronic network, and on the electronic network of whoever you sell the rights to.
Which one makes more money for the network?
- Zak 17y agoIt seems to me that the network is the link in this chain that's becoming obsolete. The barrier to entry for distributing content online is much lower - all you need is a bit of storage and some bandwidth. The expenses may be non-trivial if something is popular enough, but there's essentially no infrastructure to set up compared to creating a new TV network. Providing content with embedded advertising looks like a better model for content providers to me. The main barrier at this point is to get people used to watching online instead of on broadcast/cable TV.
- JimmyL 17y ago>> Providing content with embedded advertising Also in-program advertising, as was classicly shown in The Truman Show and as seen nowadays with the gratuitous Coke cups used on American Idol. As for the networks being redundant, yes and no. Yes in the distribution sense, but certainly not in the production stage. On-line distribution may be easy (for varying levels of "easy"), but someone's still gotta put up the money, organization, time, and physical plant to write and film the show, and keep it going for a while until it gets popular.
- mikebo 17y agoDistribution of content is definitely cheaper, but that's only part of the equation. Creating content is a big part of the equation too, and the owners of that content will need to see a good ROI on the investment, or there's very little incentive to develop new content.