[opendtv] Re: Incrementalism
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:40:23 -0500
> On Jan 9, 2014, at 8:22 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
> <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> For BOTH the US and the international markets, if the TV networks can more
> directly distribute their content to people, they stand to gain more eyeballs
> and to increase their profits.
You are making an absurd assumption here. In order to gain more eyeballs, they
would need to get broadband into the homes of the masses around the world;
homes that DO HAVE access to mostly state run television services that deliver
Made in the U.S.A. content that is of interest to the International markets.
I read an article this morning making the case that Google is going to keep
growing as the rest of the world gains access to the Internet. The article
claims that Google generates $6.30 in revenue for each of the 2 billion people
around the world that have Internet access. It goes on to suggest that as the
other 5 billion people who do not currently have Internet access gain access to
the Internet, Google will prosper.
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/googles-master-plan-for-android/
Of the 2 billion with Internet access, only 600 million had broadband in 2012;
and a subset of these have either usage caps or are limited to metered
broadband via mobile devices.
So how do the networks reach more than 6 Billion people who cannot access
streaming video services?
Perhaps Bert is just a few billion bits ahead of his time...
;-)
> You posted a WSJ article that claimed that Internet distribution, and BluRay,
> were the most profitable for the movie studios. Why do you think this
> wouldn't apply to TV? The disk option might be profitable, but it is NOT
> popular anymore with viewers. So, what does that leave? Internet distribution
> = most profitable.
For starters, the days of paying to watch movies with commercials are largely
behind us in the U.S. When a movie makes it to ad supported TV distribution it
is nearing the end of its useful licensing life.
There are still many people in the U.S. that collect movies; tape is dead, DVD
is dying, and Blu-Ray is a niche that is competing with Digital HD downloads
for collectors who cannot wait for a title to reach the rental market. The
largest profits come from direct sales of movies to consumers. You saw the
stats for the entire market earlier in this thread.
Far fewer people collect TV series; DVD anthologies did well in the rental
market, especially for shows like the Sopranos, which never reached the
majority of the broadcast/MVPD audience. And most popular TV shows move into
syndication within a year or two of their original broadcast, providing another
way for people to "catch up" with shows they missed.
Obviously, sites like Hulu and the network portals, are allowing many in the
U.S., like Bert, to see these shows with ads. And services like Netflix,
iTunes, and Hulu Plus allow ad free viewing at a relatively low cost compared
to buying a TV series.
> In truth, within the US, I can see the TV networks are aware of this, at
> least somewhat. They seem to be getting beyond their insistence on just the
> MVPD contract, to deliver Internet streams of special events. I'll wait until
> the next winter Olympics to see for sure.
Why wait?
NBC has already told us how we can watch...
http://www.nbcolympics.com/viewers-guide
Sorry Bert - without a MVPD subscription you will once again be limited to what
you can access via FOTA Broadcasts.
> Outside the US, where the networks could potentially gain a huge following
> with the direct US feed, they could be getting more of the ad revenue with
> fewer middlemen in the loop. Again, "most profitable" for the movie studios,
> Craig. The existing mechanisms you mention wouldn't be as profitable, and
> don't offer the original versions of the programming, and don't stream to
> Internet toys.
See above.
> And Netflix is working hard to rectify that problem. They even had that
> abortive attempt to remove their name from the DVD rental service. That's how
> much they want people to stream.
No doubt streaming is the future Bert. But you cannot stream without the
rights, and the long term prospects for Netflix are clouded by the fact that
they operate at the mercy of the congloms. You are rightly focused on where the
movie studios make the largest profits..
1. Direct sales
2. Rentals
3. Licensing to streaming services
These are all well choreographed release windows. Titles do not reach the
streaming services until the first two windows have been exhausted.
> Again, you misunderstand what's going on. The HD ahead-of-time download is
> similar to the DVD rental of years past. It is the only practical way of
> distributing true HD material TODAY, to people with slower broadband links,
> and before all the necessary mirrored servers are in place.
This is just plain wrong.
Digital HD download is a NEW window BEFORE release on shiny discs and to
premium movie services. You not only get earlier access to the movie, but you
own it; you just don't have a physical copy.
The ability to rent shiny discs is based on legal challenges; at first the
movie industry tried to shut down this market, until someone realized that
packaged media sales and rentals were an entirely new way to make more money...
Remember the Sony Betamax case Bert? The studios went all the way to the
Supreme Court to block consumers from having copies of movies and TV shows.
They lost the case but won big, as the VCR and then DVDs created vast new
markets for their content.
> Streaming is the preferred method, however. It is easiest for the customer
> AND for Netflix. They wouldn't have to distribute those STBs anymore. But
> true HD streaming is not quite ready for prime time. That's all, Craig.
> Trends.
Yes Bert, trends are important, and we in the U.S. are responsible for many
trends.
Most of the world still does not have HD Bert, much less the access to
broadband to realize your dream.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: