[opendtv] Re: Incrementalism
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 07:17:32 -0500
> On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:38 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Obviously, Craig, not all US network shows are "addressed," as you say.
> Because the local TV networks have plenty of their own shows too. Plus, the
> US shows are dubbed.There are only so many prime time hours.
Really? Most local time slots are filled with syndicated programming. This is
either off network reruns, or programs created for syndication like Dr. Phil
and Entertainment Tonight.
Truly local shows have little appeal outside their local market, much less in
international markets. In essence, they would appeal mostly to U.S. Citizens
traveling outside the U.S. And then there is the minor issue that most
syndicated programs have restrictive licenses that limit distribution to the
local TV market.
As for Prime Time, it only applies in U.S. Time zones. It is 1 am in London
when Prime Time starts in New York. So streaming what is currently being
broadcast is of little value; and VOD access via a site like Hulu just
undermines the lucrative syndication right for broadcasters outside the U.S.
> So, it is hardly a stretch to think that 500 million broadband subscribers
> around the world couldn't double the viewership of US TV network shows whose
> content is left intact.
It is a huge stretch.
First, you have no idea how many people are already watching U.S. shows in
markets outside the U.S. Second you keep ignoring the fact that 92% of
potential international viewers do not have broadband.
> At what cost to the local fare? Hard to say, but it's also not the concern of
> the US networks. This is exactly the same effect that the movie industry had
> on local theaters. People want to see the good stuff, and will do so when
> given the option. The movie industry allowed star actors to be shared all
> over the world, rather than just in their local theater. At the expense of
> the local talent, in most cases.
Yup! And they have spent decades learning how to maximize revenues from U.S.
content exports. I would also add that there is a huge difference between
movies and TV shows. Only a small percentage of what the congloms produce is of
interest to the international markets.
In many cases, it is the "concept" that has the value, not the content. There
are about 40 international versions of Jeopardy, each produced for local
audiences in the country where the "concept" is licensed. Likewise some of the
top rated shows in the U.S. are based on successful shows from other countries.
American Idol and The X Factor have roots in the British ITV network.
What is more relevant to this discussion is the growing use of international
content to fill up U.S. Broadcast time slots, and the streaming of
International content into the U.S. Markets. Rather than helping U.S. content
producers reach international markets they have dominated for years, the
Internet is enabling foreign producers to reach the U.S. Market, which they
have largely been shut out from for decades. This USA Today article says
volumes:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/21/international-tv-shows/1972949/
> Wow again. "Only" 500 million potential new viewing households. I'm crushed.
Get over it Bert. These are not new viewing households. They already have
access to these shows, just not when they air here.
> So let's do the math. 110 million US households have access to US TV network
> shows. 500 million potential international households. And you think it's a
> stretch that US TV networks could double the audience for their US shows, ads
> and all, untouched and undubbed?
A huge stretch. There is no question, time zone differences aside, that there
could be a large international audience for seeing these shows when broadcast
here. No doubt you would watch many shows that are offered only on MVPD
systems, IF you could watch without paying that monthly subscription.
The issue is how to maximize potential revenues.
As the rest of the world begins to gain broadband access, the situation may
change. But the reality is that there is a far larger percentage of people
outside the U.S. who still don't own a TV, than those who have broadband.
>> We're getting lost in the weeds? Or, the networks could kill off Netflix and
>> carry this on this online streaming on their own, Craig. Netflix is a
>> middleman. The content owners, who always have the leverage, use whatever
>> makes sense to them.
>
Thank you Bert. You finally acknowledge that the content owners use middlemen
because it makes sense to them. If your ideas made sense, no doubt they would
do it.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: